Asylum Seekers: HIV and TB Tests

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why immigrants and asylum seekers are not tested for HIV and tuberculosis.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, migrants from high tuberculosis risk countries intending to stay in the United Kingdom for more than six months are currently tested for tuberculosis on arrival, as are people applying for asylum at ports and airports in the UK. As we announced in Controlling Our Borders, our five-year immigration and asylum strategy (Cm 6472) published on 7 February, in future we shall target tuberculosis screening at the entry clearance stage.
	HIV, as a non-airborne infection, poses a lower immediate risk to public health, but the case for extending compulsory health checks to that and other infections is being kept under review.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I should declare that I had TB at the age of 15. Does the Minister accept that the testing system at the moment for TB does not meet the Department of Health's screening guidelines?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that. I have nothing in my briefing that says that the testing procedure is not up to scratch. Under the testing procedures at Gatwick and Heathrow, 185,000 people a year are tested, and people are found to have the infection. The recent increase in TB in this country is a cause for concern, given that the number of people suffering from the disease was stable, although the disease had not been eradicated. In the mid-1980s, 5,500 people a year were reported with the disease. That has risen to about 7,000 people, so there has not been a dramatic drop. Two-thirds of that number is discovered in people not born in this country. However, if, as the noble Baroness says, our procedures are not meeting international standards, that point will be taken up forthwith.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that concern is properly expressed about this issue, in relation not simply to the potential spread of infection of tuberculosis and HIV in the United Kingdom but also to the potential burden that such individuals may impose on the National Health Service in relation to their treatment? Is there not a case to be made for requiring legal immigrants wishing to come to this country to undergo screening for these conditions in their native countries, so that those who are infected can be refused visas?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the short answer to that is yes—although I probably did not make that clear because of the short answers that one is required to give. I did say that we had published our five-year plan in February this year, which made it clear that we intend to take the next stage of the process of requiring TB screening at entry clearance stage—that is, in the country of application. Therefore, if screened and found to have TB, people would be required to undergo treatment before a visa was issued.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, potentially, there is a great threat for NHS patients in that everyone coming to this country to work in an NHS hospital is not tested for HIV? Why is that?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, although the Question includes both TB and HIV—and I am certainly not criticising that—the public health risks are somewhat different. TB is airborne and HIV is not, so a different procedure is used. Lots of advice, treatment and screening are available for HIV, and the idea that we are doing nothing is not the case.
	The matter is highly sensitive. On the one hand, we do not want people to resist coming forward because of possible stigmatisation; on the other hand, they need to know that early treatments are available. But the two issues are slightly different, simply because the risk to public health is much greater with airborne TB than with HIV.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis have been reported? Do we have adequate facilities for isolation in our hospitals?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret that I do not have a specific answer to that, but I shall obtain one and write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the Minister have an estimate of the cost to the country when people contract these diseases?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords; I do not. Again, that is a question that I cannot answer. I shall see whether I can get an answer, but I am not so sure that it will be possible to put an actual, precise figure on it. We know the approximate figures. There is a worldwide problem with TB: some 9 million people a year are contracting the disease and 2 million to 3 million die from it. So it is a serious disease, which has certainly not been eradicated; indeed, that is long overdue.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while recognising the purpose of this Question and appreciating the answers—particularly in the case of HIV—does the Minister agree that to avoid the necessity of some of the testing that might be required for asylum seekers, especially those from Africa, we should do more to ensure that protected sex is taking place in those countries?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Department for International Development has large programmes, details of which I am quite happy to share with the House, on a range of issues relating to what we are trying to do to improve health in those countries. In some ways, both these conditions, though not necessarily in equal measure, are diseases of poverty and ignorance—and outright prejudice, in some respects. But the programmes that the Department for International Development has in various countries, and through the World Health Organisation, seek to meet the issues that lie behind my noble friend's question.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what happens to those who test positive for tuberculosis? Are they treated or simply not allowed entry and sent back?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, people who are found to have TB here are treated, whatever their status. There is no argument about that. Their immigration status is irrelevant in that regard. They will be treated as, for a start, it is a public health issue. If they are known to have TB before entering the country, they will not gain entry. As I say, screening processes need to be stepped up to screen people before they leave their own countries, particularly where there is a high risk of TB. If people show signs of ill health or mention ill health at ports of entry to this country, under the immigration procedures put in place in 1971 Immigration Service officials can ask them to undergo screening there and then. As I say, at the present time 185,000 screenings take place a year at Heathrow and Gatwick.

Army Bands: Redundancies

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of the manpower of the Corps of Army Music will be made redundant.

Lord Bach: My Lords, up to 76 members of the Corps of Army Music will be made redundant as a result of the implementation of the Future Army Structure. This represents a reduction of 8 per cent against the current Corps of Army Music trained strength of 997.
	As well as redundancies, the Corps of Army Music will also reduce in size as a result of natural wastage, and by limiting the extensions of soldiers employed on short-term engagements. Recruitment to the Corps of Army Music will continue.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in addition to the redundancies that the Minister mentioned I understand that there is an ongoing review. I am concerned that that will also result in more famous bands going to the wall. This Government have been appallingly careless with our traditions. British people old and young take enormous pride and pleasure in our Army bands. Does the Minister agree that they play an important role in maintaining esprit de corps and in keeping the Armed Forces in the public eye? Why are any redundancies being considered when the Corps of Army Music is, according to its website, short of players of the violin, viola, cello, double bass, oboe, bassoon, clarinet and saxophone?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is fairly outrageous and cheeky of the noble Lord to say that we are careless of traditions. That is completely unfair given that this Government have spent more on defence over a continued period than any other for 20 years. The noble Lord's comment is a bit rich. After all, the noble Lord supports a party which when last in power reduced planned defence spending by 15 per cent. Therefore, I shall not take any lessons from the noble Lord on that although, of course, he asked his question in his normal charming way.
	Of course, the importance of Army bands is very much recognised. They will continue their long and illustrious history of being primarily linked with regiments and corps to help support and perpetuate the regimental ethos of the Army. That ethos is as important today as it ever has been.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, have efforts been made to rerole those bandsmen rather than making them redundant? As many bandsmen have nuclear, biological and chemical training and are trained as medics, would it not be cost-effective to rerole them rather than retrain other people? Following the noble Lord's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is he aware that an election may come round soon?

Lord Bach: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, I am aware of that matter. As regards the noble Lord's first point, I shall certainly ensure that that is considered. As I say, redundancies will constitute a small number of those who will leave the Corps of Army Music. The remaining reduction will be achieved through natural wastage and by limiting the extensions of soldiers employed on short-term engagements. That is the same as elsewhere in the Armed Forces but I shall, of course, take away the idea that we should consider reroling the relevant people.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the band of the Royal Marines is about the finest of any of the military bands? What is its role, particularly since playing on the royal yacht—the noble Lord seems to have forgotten the question of tradition—constituted its main role?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness's comment about the band of the Royal Marines. I have had the pleasure of listening to that band play on a number of occasions. I have listened to it in the Royal Albert Hall and in other places. The Question I am answering today concerns Army bands. As I understand it, no change is considered with regard to the Royal Marines.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the Minister give me an absolute guarantee that if the Scottish division is reduced to five battalions, each will have its own pipe band? How many military bands will there be in the Scottish division?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a guarantee on that. It is proposed that there will be one band for the division. I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord regarding pipe bands.

Lord Garden: My Lords, the Minister gave us a very precise answer regarding the bandsmen who will have to be made redundant. Presumably, he has similar figures for the various specialisations of all the other services. What cash provision is the Ministry of Defence having to make for redundancy for the financial year that starts tomorrow and for the subsequent two years?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the cash provision over the period when the Future Army Structure comes into being is about £30 million.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, will my noble friend accept from me that the shortages in recruitment to which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred are not limited to musicians wishing to take part in military musical activities but are an indication of a general shortfall in young people wishing to take up music as a career and reaching the required standard? Will he encourage his colleagues in other departments to continue the good work that this Government have been doing in getting more young people involved in music at an early stage?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend has great experience in this field, but I know myself that there are shortages across the board as far as music is concerned. I will certainly pass on what she said to other government departments.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the Scottish regiments pipe bands are normally formed from fighting platoons whose main task is military, and that the role of pipes and drums is purely secondary and undertaken when they are not required for military purposes, unlike military bands as such?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord Luke: My Lords, when so many fighting regiment bands are likely to be decimated, why is it necessary for the Adjutant-General's corps to have a band at all? In view of the redundancies that he has announced, will the Minister confirm that the school of music at Knellor Hall is not under threat of closure?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as I know, the school of music is not under threat of closure. If I am wrong about that, I will of course tell the House in the normal way as soon as possible.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my peripheral interest. The Minister introduced the subject of the size of the defence budget. As a percentage of GDP, has the defence budget increased or decreased?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. All I know is that this Government have increased the defence budget over the past number of years, in absolute marked contrast to the party of the noble Earl opposite.

Children Act: Guidance

Lord Pendry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in line with the commitment which they gave during the passage of the Children Bill, they have addressed play and recreation in the guidance issued on the Children Act 2005.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. As part of implementing the Children Act, two particular sets of draft guidance make it clear that play is an important part of recreation; that is, statutory guidance on inter-agency co-operation to improve the well-being of children, and guidance on the children and young people's plan. Additionally, the nine inspectorates and commissions that inspect children's services have proposed that joint area reviews will address all children's services against 42 key judgments, one of which is that there is a range of accessible recreational provision for children and young people.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, in view of the anxieties that still exist among children's groups on this issue, will she agree to meet those groups as soon as possible to assure them that the spirit of my amendment during the passage of the Bill will be fully reflected in the Every Child Matters inspection framework?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. I am pleased to say that the Children's Play Council is a good friend to the Government, and there is good partnership there. We continue to value the consultations that we have with it and with the voluntary sector. The noble Lord might like to know that the Minister has written to him today, to tell him that the inspection guidance which is now being looked at in relation to consultation will clarify that play is within the scope of the key judgments on recreational provision. That is the first time that inspection will make reference to play and recreation. That is an important step forward.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, what arrangements have been made to see that children with special needs, particularly physically disabled children, are able to be as fully included as possible in all play and recreational schemes?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is important, because the Dobson review on play drew attention to the fact that there was a gap in provision for disabled young people as regards play. We are simply not doing enough for them, bearing in mind that they have special needs for play and for particular types of play. The inspectorates have already proposed the joint area reviews, which are the new ways of making sure that the Children Act will be properly implemented across the local authorities. They will have a particular focus on children with disabilities and special needs, which is good; as is the announcement last week that the Big Lottery Fund is allocating £155 million for play and recreation, which is a wonderful step forward in this field.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to play in the context of recreation. Does she agree that play is an essential dimension of learning for younger children and that play in the form of games, competitive sports and team games is an important element in learning social skills for older children?

Baroness Andrews: Absolutely, my Lords; play is the foundation of learning. They are interdependent, which is why in the guidance on the foundation stage of learning for three to fives, and the Birth To Three Matters programme, covering from birth to three years, we have put such an emphasis on play as part of child development and social skills. The noble Lord is passionately interested in the role of parents, and much of what we do is to enable parents through different programmes to learn how to play with their children and to understand the benefits that that brings.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in looking back on childhood, I think of play and playing out as a great highlight. I remember doing some things that I would not dream of letting my children and grandchildren do. But will the Minister indicate in the discussions and guidance where play is to take place? I look back on places where one played out and you cannot do it any more; there is some formal activity taking place in those places. In order that there can be enjoyable play, it seems to me that there must be a place where play can take place.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we would all like to hear some more details about that childhood; it sounds extremely intriguing. I am not sure that the noble Lord has changed. However, he is absolutely right. One of the things that we will be looking at when we are inspecting, and Ofsted will have a role in this too, is whether new play provision is safe, accessible and equal in terms of access for all children. Our streets are not as safe as they were. Part of the emphasis that we want to put on better neighbourhoods and safer neighbourhoods is on freeing up proper spaces for children to be safe to play.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, does the definition of children's services in law, as it relates to the Every Child Matters framework, include provision for play?

Baroness Andrews: Very much so, my Lords. I am sure that noble Lords will remember the debates that we had in the passage of the Children Act, when we discussed the relationship between enjoying and achieving and we added recreation into the Bill as one of the outcomes, emphasising that play belonged within recreation. That is written in all our materials that are going out on the implementation of the Children Act.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister recall that investment in the Summer Splash play schemes in 2002 led to a reduction in crime of 7.4 per cent in the area invested? In the same period of June, July and August in the previous year, there had been an increase in crime of 2.9 per cent. So there was an overall drop of 10 per cent. Is that not another reason why we should be investing more in this area?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is a completely watertight argument. In fact, the Splash programmes have been so successful at picking up some of the most disaffected children, who would say that otherwise they would be in the back of a police car for most of the summer, that some of those children have now been enrolled in activities such as the positive activities for young people programme, which involved over 100,000 children last year. It was extremely successful. That is in the context of the expansion of out-of-school activities as a whole which, through the New Opportunities Fund and government funding, have seen a major expansion over the past five years.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that children need to learn to play, and that the performing arts can make a very important contribution to helping children to find ways of expressing themselves through play? Are encouragement and funding available for organisations that are developing techniques using the performing arts in this way?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that there would have been a positive link with the funding that came from the New Opportunities Fund, which developed out-of-school arts, play and recreation. I am sure that we will see a lot of innovative work in the programmes funded by the Big Lottery Fund. It is extremely important to bring that together, because I absolutely agree that the arts are such a creative form of play in themselves.

Sudan: Darfur

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their latest estimate of the number of those who have died or been displaced in Darfur, Sudan, following the recent United Nations report.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, accurate figures are not available, and estimates vary from 70,000 to 300,000 dead. The United Kingdom will fund a mortality survey, but it is unlikely to produce a full and accurate picture. However, we are pleased that the three recent United Nations Security Council resolutions will support the peace process. UNSCR 1590 provides for troops in support of the comprehensive peace agreement, UNSCR 1591 provides for the sanctions against those who impede the peace process, and UNSCR 1593—sponsored by the United Kingdom—deals with the referral of individuals suspected of war crimes to the International Criminal Court. All those United Nations resolutions are positive developments.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I strongly welcome the role that Her Majesty's Government played in securing the passage of Resolution 1593 in particular, referring those responsible for war crimes to the International Criminal Court. However, the Minister will have seen the report published last week by a House of Commons Select Committee entitled Darfur, Sudan: The responsibility to protect. It was critical, stating that early warnings about the emerging crisis were ignored and that there had been a scandalously ineffective response. She will have also seen its estimates that approximately 300,000 people have now died in Darfur. It states that nearly 2.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, a figure which it suggests could rise to 4 million by the end of the year. Does she believe that the fewer than 2,000 African Union soldiers in Darfur will be sufficient to contain the continuing crisis?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary worked enormously hard; it was particularly difficult to secure the passage of UNSCR 1593 but, happily, those who were inclined to veto were persuaded to abstain.
	Of course I am aware of the report to which the noble Lord refers, but our Department for International Development has worked hard on justice, the security sector, and disarmament and demobilisation. He asks whether there are enough AU troops on the ground. The report of 11 January from Special Representative Pronk said that the African Union was making a difference on the ground and had surpassed expectations. However, as the noble Lord will know, the African Union force is under review. We expect a report from those countries taking part in the review very shortly on ways in which the force can be further strengthened by the UN.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in the light of the new UN figures placing the death toll at 300,000, will Her Majesty's Government continue to maintain that the Darfur atrocities are not genocide?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been over the matter before. As we get more and more evidence about what is happening on the ground, I have no doubt that more and more opinions will be brought to bear on it. The noble Baroness knows that it is difficult to get to the real information, given the violent nature of what is happening. That is why it is so important that the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been passed. It was an enormous achievement, starting on 24 March and working through to 31 March, that we now have international consensus about what should be happening. Importantly, the referral of 51 individuals to the International Criminal Court took place today.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the logistic difficulties mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, as having prevented the force even reaching the target level of 3,300 troops, which was specified in the original resolution at the end of October 2004? Will she further say when the Security Council will consider the recommendation by Mr Jan Pronk that there be an increase in the strength of the force to at least 8,000, and that the mandate of the force be extended to the protection of the civilian population?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, the AU-led mission—it included not only the UN, the UK and the US, but the EU—is currently looking at the performance of the AU on the ground. I have already told your Lordships that Mr Pronk from the UN has said that that performance has surpassed expectations. However, the next stage is the recommended increase to 6,000 troops; I do not think that the figure is 8,000. It will be under consideration in the light of the report coming forward from the countries that I mentioned, which have undertaken the review as part of that AU-led mission.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the African Union force have access to helicopters, or does it rely on land transport only?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know. However, I know that the logistic capabilities are part of the current review. When the UN report comes forward, there will be more discussion about further ways in which the United Nations can help to strengthen the logistic position on the ground of the AU force. That may be through logistics and—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested—strengthening numbers on the ground.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I press the Minister one step further on this crucial issue? If there is an increase in the scale of the AU intervention, can she say for certain that Her Majesty's Government would give serious consideration to greater logistical help, including heavy-lift aircraft, which the AU has repeatedly pointed out that it has found great difficulty in arranging for itself?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are giving substantial support to the AU mission—£14 million to date. We have supplied logistic support. The airlift comes from the Nigerian force protection contingent. We provided 143 vehicles last year and are contributing the majority of 470 vehicles that have further been requested by the African Union. We are also providing a military planner to the African Union, so we are already heavily engaged in the logistic support. If more logistic support is demanded as a result of the review, I am sure that the United Kingdom will be as much on the front foot in the future as we have been in the recent past on the issue.

Zimbabwe

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
	Whether Her Majesty's Government will make a Statement on the recent elections in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in answering this Question, I am not repeating my right honourable friend's Statement in another place, but covering its salient points. Therefore, my response will be a little longer than would be customary in answering a Starred Question.
	As the House is aware, elections were held in Zimbabwe last Thursday, 31 March. The declared results gave ZANU-PF 78 seats, the Movement for Democratic Change 41 seats, and independents one seat. With 30 further seats which are appointed—the gift of the president—that declared result will give ZANU-PF the two-thirds majority required for amending the Zimbabwe constitution.
	Those are the official published results. However, there is strong evidence that they do not reflect the free democratic will of the Zimbabwean people. It is true that there was less violence than in 2000 and 2002 but, overall, the election process was seriously flawed. Thousands were turned away from the polling booths. There are serious unexplained discrepancies between votes tallied and the official number announced. Other abuse was rife—food aid misused, ghost voters, a lack of equal access to the media, the use of draconian security legislation, and an election commission packed with ZANU-PF supporters.
	If Mr Mugabe had nothing to hide over the conduct of the elections, he would have allowed full access by the international media and experienced external election observers. However, key observers were banned, including from the Commonwealth, the EU and—most revealingly—the SADC parliamentary forum.
	The report of the Commission for Africa rightly set out the need for stronger action by the international community to address Africa's problems. The commission also made it crystal clear how much bad governance had blighted parts of Africa and had frustrated people's hopes of building for themselves a better and more prosperous future. Tragically, there is no more powerful example than that in Zimbabwe.
	Given all this, my ministerial colleagues and I are surprised and saddened that Zimbabwe's neighbours have chosen to ignore the obvious and serious flaws in these elections and have declared them fair. But many in southern Africa have spoken about the reality of Zimbabwe. Just two months ago, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Zimbabwe was "a huge blot on the record" of the world's poorest continent.
	The United Kingdom will continue to work with our international partners for a return to accountable, democratic government which represents the rule of law and human rights in Zimbabwe. The EU Commission's position on Zimbabwe is the strongest on any country in Africa. It includes targeted sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe, and an arms embargo.
	Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has made a major contribution to ensure that Zimbabwe's food shortages do not lead to famine by donating over £71 million in food aid since September 2001. A strong statement about the elections was issued last night by the EU presidency, concluding that the election could not be judged to be free and fair and called on Zimbabwe to restore democracy. International measures show the wide condemnation of President Mugabe's ruinous policies. Until Mugabe and his regime respond, they will continue to be isolated internationally.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; time does not allow me to respond in detail to all the numerous points that she raised. But I must confess some surprise that neither here nor in the other place has a Statement been offered by the Government on this grim and ugly issue and that it has had to be squeezed out of Ministers by our questioning today.
	Numerous other governments made statements over the weekend and all pointed out, as the Minister has done, that this was a fraudulent victory, secured in a climate of fear and intimidation. America, Australia, New Zealand and many others have been particularly robust, but, so far, until this moment, not the United Kingdom.
	Is it not crystal clear that this matter should now go to the UN Security Council? We are told again and again that such an attempt would fail, but has it even been tried? In the changing atmosphere, should it not be tried again? Who is going to stand up in the Security Council to defend the actions of Mugabe in ruining his country and creating growing starvation? Why has there been so little pressure on South Africa to take a stand against what is happening on its doorstep? Is it not time that that should happen?
	The declared objective of British foreign policy and of the Minister's own office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is supposed to be:
	"sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights".
	None of those exists in Zimbabwe. Is it not time that we should be saying so much more loudly and applying effective sanctions through our European partners, who so far have been remarkably tepid in their actions, much more vigorously?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I really must take issue with the noble Lord. I do not think that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, nor my honourable friend Mr Mullin, can be criticised for any lack of robustness on the question of Zimbabwe. They have been consistent and the noble Lord is aware of the effort that has gone into bringing together the 25 countries of the EU, the 50-plus countries of the Commonwealth and the fight that there has been—the noble Lord knows this—in the Commonwealth to ensure that Zimbabwe was barred from its counsels.
	The noble Lord also knows that this country is singled out over and over again by the Government of Zimbabwe as still having colonial ambitions upon that country. That is why this country has worked with others and will continue to work with others.
	The noble Lord asked why we do not try a little harder in the UN. Does the noble Lord really want to give Mr Mugabe the comfort of a UN Security Council resolution being denied? Does he really want Mr Mugabe to be able to turn around and say, "There you are—after all, they would not vote for it in the UN"? That would provide the kind of comfort to Mr Mugabe that none of us wants to give.
	There is absolutely no doubt that we all feel strongly on this issue. I have answered questions on it many times in the past eight years. My noble friend Lady Amos has answered many questions. This is a wretched, ruthless regime in Zimbabwe. It is masquerading as a legitimate democracy. It is not. It is pretending to serve its people. It does not do so. It has reduced its economy to the worst performing in Africa and the fastest shrinking in the world. It is hiding behind false and spurious accusations against this country of colonial ambitions and is thereby claiming the support of its neighbours which it does not deserve.
	This statement made a robust point about the disappointment and the sadness that we feel about the way that Zimbabwe's neighbours have reacted. That is the point. It is a real difficulty in Africa, and the noble Lord knows it.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the report of the Africa Commission. How far can the emphasis on good governance, which the Africa Commission, and NePAD before it, contained, be carried through in the case of Zimbabwe? What are the lessons that we must learn about trying to promote good governance in Africa when we have such an appalling example of bad governance, on which it seems difficult to persuade Zimbabwe's neighbours to exert sufficient pressure?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are many countries in Africa where democracy is starting to take root and where we are seeing the emergence of good governance. But whichever part of the world one looks at regarding the growth of democracy and good governance, the noble Lord will know that that takes time. The noble Lord has told me in relation to other parts of the world that one size does not fit all. It does not, but that does not mean that the ambitions for good governance and democracy should not be the same.
	We work where we can with the partners that we have. We have good partners in some parts of southern Africa. We have the statement from COSATU about what has happened in Zimbabwe in recent days. We have the statements from other African leaders. What we do not have and we desperately need is the consensus in southern Africa to say something robust and uncompromising about the way in which Mr Mugabe is running that country.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that within this House there is no disagreement whatever about the tragic situation in Zimbabwe? It is a matter of extreme regret that the noble Lord who asked this Private Notice Question should have introduced such a sour note in trying to show differences within this House which do not exist? Does he not realise that he is playing exactly into the hands of President Mugabe, who will say, "Look, they cannot even agree in the House of Lords about what happens"?
	We know for certain that there are serious doubts about the Zimbabwean election. In fact there seems to be no doubt that the election was rigged. Does that make a difference? We have said in this House time and time again that we want free, democratic elections in Zimbabwe. We have said time and time again that pressure must be maintained on Mugabe and his regime. So it must. But to make that effective, we must work with as many international partners as we can and not simply condemn President Mbeki or whoever.
	If the people of Zimbabwe are to have some decent future, we must learn to work together to bring that about.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, we must work with the partners that we can find and my noble friend is quite right. I do not think that there is any disagreement in your Lordships' House. I do not believe that there is a disagreement about our analysis of what is happening in Zimbabwe. I remind my noble counterpart that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did issue a statement last week on this matter. Maybe the noble Lord missed it, but a statement was issued, although it was not offered in the House. None the less a robust statement was forthcoming.
	But the whole question of how we handle this is one of working in partnerships. The more that the Opposition try to chisel away at the Government over this matter, the more they give comfort to Mr Mugabe and his henchmen. Surely the noble Lord can see that.

Business of the House: Dissolution of Parliament

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the 10 minutes are up for the procedure that we have just concluded. I wish to raise a little matter of some changed business for the rest of the week, which, with permission, I should like to spell out. A sheet available in the Printed Paper Office will provide the details, so if anyone were minded to take notes there would be no need.
	As the House may have noticed, it has been suggested that there should be a Dissolution of Parliament and a general election on 5 May. The consequences of that for our business are considerable for the rest of the week and are as follows.
	The House will meet tomorrow at 2.30 p.m., as is usual, will meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday and, if necessary, there will be a further meeting on Friday. Parliament will be prorogued either on Thursday or Friday, depending upon the progress of business. Dissolution will take place by proclamation on Monday, 11 April. That does not involve us at all; it happens in a way that has worked over the centuries and I trust that it will on this occasion. The general election will take place on 5 May. The new Parliament will be summoned on Wednesday, 11 May, for the election of a Speaker and swearing in in the Commons and for swearing in here. The State Opening will be on Tuesday, 17 May.
	I turn to the consequences for today's, tomorrow's and Thursday's business. Today, we shall proceed with business as on the Order Paper. There is one additional piece of routine information, which your Lordships will have seen on the Annunciator. With permission, a Statement on postal voting will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Ashton immediately after, following my Statement, my noble friend the Leader has moved her Motion concerning a change to the Standing Orders. Then we shall continue with the Committee stage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Extensive discussions have taken place with the usual channels, as is normal on these occasions, and it is expected that we shall be able to conclude the Committee stage of that Bill today.
	So far as concerns tomorrow and Thursday, the following business has been agreed. First, in order for the decks to be cleared, I am happy to say that my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Drayson have both kindly agreed to withdraw their debates tomorrow. I am sure that the whole House will wish to record its appreciation.
	In the light of that, tomorrow's business will begin, as usual, with Prayers and Starred Questions. My noble friend the Leader will then move the customary business Motion, which, among other things, enables more than one stage of a Bill to be taken on the same day. We shall then proceed to the Third Reading of the Railways Bill, the remaining stages of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, the Committee and remaining stages of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, and the Committee and remaining stages of the Drugs Bill. We shall then complete the Committee stage and remaining stages of the Gambling Bill. We shall conclude tomorrow's business with the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005, which is already scheduled to be on the Order Paper.
	Tomorrow, we may also take the Report stage and Third Reading of the School Transport Bill, but that depends on discussions and negotiations, which are still proceeding. Of course, as noble Lords can judge from that list, the House may sit beyond 10 o'clock tomorrow night. The good news is that the Refreshment Department, with its customary alacrity, has agreed to provide what is required in the Dining Room.
	As I said earlier, Thursday will begin at 11 o'clock with Prayers and Starred Questions. We shall then have the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill and the Appropriation Bill. We shall then consider Commons amendments to the Disability Discrimination Bill, the Education Bill and the Inquiries Bill, which have already passed through this House, and any other messages that may be received from the Commons. As usual, there will be a speakers' list for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and that will be put up in the Whips' Office immediately.
	Finally, the Clerk of the Parliaments has agreed that the Public Bill Office will accept amendments to any Bill in advance and will also relax as much as possible the deadlines for tabling amendments. Tonight, amendments may be tabled up to 6 p.m. As I am sure the House will understand and appreciate, it is difficult for us all to reach agreement on these matters, but I hope that this business Statement commends itself to the House.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Government Chief Whip said, some hard and constructive work has taken place this morning at both ends of the building and, through that, we have achieved at least a substantial measure of agreement on the outstanding Bills. That is reflected in the business announcement, which the Government Chief Whip has just made and which we support. We have a great deal of work to do in the remaining time this week but we believe that, with the good will that has been available in the discussions, we can, indeed, achieve that aim.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I agree that in general there has been wide consensus on the programme of work which is set out before us in the Business Statement that has just been made by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. However, on certain important Bills—in particular, the Charities Bill—a great deal of hard work was done in Grand Committee, and we on these Benches much regret that it has not been possible for that Bill to reach the statute book in this Session.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has borne in mind that among this mass of legislation, which he asks your Lordships to complete this week, will be the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which we have not yet started and which runs to 240 pages with amendments running to 45 pages. The Bill is very controversial in places. Would it not be better to carry that Bill over into another Parliament?

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms say whether his Statement, and in particular the various dates which he has announced to your Lordships this afternoon—especially the date of the State Opening—has any effect on the planned Recess dates, which he helpfully announced last November? In particular, does it have any effect on the planned date for the Whitsun Recess, which I believe was scheduled to start with the House rising on 26 May and reassembling on Monday, 6 June?

Lord Renton: My Lords, when I mentioned that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill should carry on into another Parliament, I really meant that it would be better if we abandoned it in this Parliament and started it entirely afresh in another Parliament.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support that because the Bill contains 174 clauses and 18 schedules. There are a lot of words in the Bill and much opposition to it. That includes a good deal of opposition from the Police Federation, which is extremely concerned at some of the measures contained in it, especially where it hands over police powers to civilian people in, for example, looking after prisoners in police stations. The Bill also contains questions relating to assembly. That is certainly of concern to people who are worried about the erosion of individual rights of assembly. One could go on: the Bill contains a huge list of problems.
	Bearing in mind that we have not even reached the Committee stage—it is not a question of resuming it; we have not even started it—would it not be in the interests of democracy for the Bill, which has been through the Commons, to be stood down for the time being? It could be introduced back into the Commons, where it would perhaps pass quickly and formally, and then come to this House for its proper Committee and Report stages and Third Reading so that the whole context of the Bill could be considered properly. The fact that government amendments have been tabled shows that some things are wrong with the Bill.
	I implore the Government and, indeed, the Opposition, not to let this very serious, contentious and important Bill go through. It has implications for the individual rights of people in this country and the way we are policed. I ask them to reconsider their decision.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, when I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I always reflect on the time when he was quite a tough-minded Whip in the other place. I was not exactly in fear and trembling of him but I recognised then that he understood, as I am sure he does now, that decisions on business always involve compromises about what time can be spent on different aspects. He mentions the interests of democracy, but I would have thought that the interests of democracy would be served by the Commons passing the Bill after scrutiny. Clearly, all sides agree that it is a Bill that will benefit the people of this country.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we allow the Chief Whip to finish.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as long as I can come back, yes.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, on the contributions from the two Front Benches, from the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Roper, I appreciate the co-operation and the manner in which it has taken place. As is always the case, it has involved all of us making compromises and none of us achieving precisely and exactly what he or she would like.
	I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on the Charities Bill. I know it is a Bill that many people want. It was included in the Queen's Speech. My view of the Queen's Speech was that it included pretty well everything that anyone could reasonably hope for. Who knows, a future Queen's Speech may include something similar to the Charities Bill.
	On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I acknowledge that many of these Bills are long and complicated, but from his very long experience in this House and in the other place he will recognise that there are always accelerated procedures at this time in every Parliament. The discussions that have taken place between the various Front Benches, which I hope reflect the views of many Back-Benchers as well, will mean that, while no one achieves everything that he wants in the Bill, there will be an acceptable compromise that will enable the Bill to pass on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, it has always been an ambition of mine to protect Recess dates. I am strongly in favour of that. I fear that I cannot give any guarantees about the next Parliament as we do not know what we shall be doing in the next Parliament. My strong commitment to protect Recess dates may be an added reason to vote Labour.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I noted what he said about the House of Commons having discussed and passed the police Bill, but this is supposed to be a bicameral, not a unicameral, Parliament. A Bill should not become an Act until it has received due process and discussion in both Houses, but will not receive that in this House. I believe that that undermines our parliamentary system. Once again, I implore the Government and the Opposition to reconsider their position on this very contentious and important Bill.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, to which we shall turn soon today, it will become apparent in the course of the discussions that there has been considerable agreement for changes to be made to it; for example, the dropping of the clauses concerned with religious hatred and other aspects. At the beginning of the discussions on that Bill it may be helpful if the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, makes clear the changes being made so as to reassure people that it is not the full Bill as originally envisaged up to this point.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
	Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper)
	In paragraph (1), leave out "except on Thursdays, when business other than Unstarred Questions may be entered before Starred Questions".
	In paragraph (4), leave out "Wednesdays" and insert "Thursdays".
	In paragraph (5), leave out "Wednesdays" and insert "Thursdays".
	Standing Order 42 (Business of which notice is not necessary)
	In paragraph (3), leave out "On Thursdays Bills may also be presented after Starred Questions in the afternoon".
	Standing Order 71 (Laying of Statutory Instruments)
	Leave out paragraph (2).
	Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments)
	In paragraph (2), leave out "the Emergency Powers Act 1920" and insert "Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004".—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Postal Voting

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr Nick Raynsford. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on postal voting fraud, in the Birmingham wards of Bordesley Green and Aston. The judgment was announced yesterday. The judge declared both elections void.
	"We unreservedly condemn the abuses of postal voting in Birmingham. With a general election having been announced today, we are taking further steps to reinforce the safeguards against any potential fraud and we are determined that the fraud in these cases in Birmingham does not undermine public confidence in the electoral system.
	"Honourable Members may be aware that there are tough penalties already in place for electoral fraud: on conviction, those found guilty are liable to two years in prison and an unlimited fine, as well as disqualification from voting and standing for office.
	"In general the system in the UK has been secure and commanded public confidence. We have no history of widespread electoral fraud and there is no reason to believe that electoral fraud has become widespread. In fact, evidence suggests that it is very rare. Since 1998 there have been only four recorded prosecutions for electoral fraud.
	"Contrary to suggestions that have been made, the Government are not complacent. Our top priority is to safeguard the integrity of the ballot. To ensure that the system stays safe and secure we have put in place the following. The Electoral Commission has already published on 29 March 2005 a code of conduct for political parties, candidates and canvassers on the handling of postal vote applications and postal ballot papers. We expect all political parties and candidates to confirm their commitment to this code.
	"We will pursue new initiatives with the police to ensure that offenders are brought to justice. I have spoken this morning to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary who has confirmed he will be discussing this with the Association of Chief Police Officers tomorrow.
	"Following the judgment, we have now written to all returning officers, stressing the importance of taking counter measures against electoral fraud. The Electoral Commission, together with the Association of Chief Police Officers, will shortly publish guidance specifically for returning officers and local police forces on fraud prevention and investigation. It is vital that all organisations work together to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
	"To back these renewed efforts we have provided additional funding for the forthcoming general election above that given in 2001. Around £10 million of that extra money is to support the administration of the elections. This will help support returning officers dealing with additional requests for postal votes and put in place measures that maintain the integrity of the electoral process.
	"As the Birmingham cases have related very specifically to postal voting, I believe that it is important to put in context the full implication of postal voting opportunities in the UK. Postal voting has been available in one form or another since 1918, initially for service personnel and subsequently extended to cover those physically incapable of going in person to the poll, or absent because of their occupation, change of address, or holiday. Five years ago, the Representation of the People Act extended the option of postal voting, following the recommendation of an all-party working party on electoral procedures.
	"The system whereby anyone can apply for a postal vote has now been in place since that date. The proportion of people taking advantage has increased substantially. At the 2001 general election, the number of postal votes almost doubled from the 1997 election level to approximately 4 per cent. In the 2002 local elections, 7.7 per cent of the electorate had postal votes. At the 2004 European elections outside the four all-postal regions, approximately 8.3 per cent of the electorate had postal votes. This trend reflects the popularity and convenience of voting by post, something which has also been evidenced in the series of all-postal voting pilots conducted in local authority elections since 2000. Postal voting provides an easy and accessible way for many people to participate in the democratic process. People should have the right to a postal vote if that is what they want.
	"Having said that, it is essential to maintain the integrity of the electoral process and we are taking the measures that I have outlined to ensure this. The Electoral Commission, which has rejected any question of withdrawing postal ballots, has also recommended, in its report Voting for change, a number of measures to improve security. The Government published their response to this report in December 2004, accepting the large majority of the recommendations. We will put these measures into statute when parliamentary time allows.
	"The commission's chief executive said this morning:
	'There is enough awareness of the risks, enough steps are being taken to make sure that postal voting at the moment can be run successfully'.
	The Government share that view. We are determined that the elections we are about to have will be secure and fair".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I apologise for having missed the first part of the Statement; the screen upstairs flipped over slightly before I expected it to. I have of course read the Statement and apologise for not being here. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. It really cannot have been very happy reading—though perhaps, as she has not taken part in all the other discussions we have had on postal voting, it may have been less of a burden than it would be to other Ministers who have enjoyed our long discussions. Whatever the case, it simply will not do.
	This House will have been amazed, first of all, at the lack of any apology from the party opposite. It is responsible to the people of Birmingham for this unparalleled electoral corruption. Indeed, if you had read the Statement alone, you would think that the Labour Party, or members of it, had absolutely nothing to do with what has happened. Further, this omission was compounded by an attack on Judge Mawrey by the Minister in another place—a judge who has listened very carefully to all the evidence and come to a very firm conclusion.
	If the Statement is anything to go by, the judge was right to criticise the Government's complacency on this matter. And that is where the responsibility lies. The Government have been obsessed, as with so many other areas of the constitution and its processes, with change for change's sake. They have been so convinced that postal ballots are to their electoral advantage that they have refused to listen to any warnings about the integrity of large-scale postal balloting.
	The Government ignored advice from the Electoral Commission, they ignored advice from other parties, and they ignored the advice of this House. Five times this House tried to overthrow the legislation to prevent a ban on casting a secret ballot at a polling station. The Government were absolutely determined that it should happen. They absolutely refused to accept the huge concerns which were expressed over and over again during the passage of two major pieces of legislation, that the process was open to abuse. Experience after experience was quoted in this place, but all of it was pushed to one side. Now it is high time for the Government to listen and to eat a little bit of humble pie.
	When the Government came to power there was not a shred of doubt about the integrity of our voting system, based on the norm of a secret ballot cast in person and on the limited availability of postal voting for those who would otherwise be unable to vote at all. On figures in the Statement alone, well over 90 per cent of people still prefer the tried and trusted system that millions fought and died for—of going to a polling station and placing their votes in person.
	Since 1918, postal ballots have rightly been allowed to those who need them. It was only five years ago that the Government opened the floodgates to bucket-shop balloting. Only since then have doubts about the integrity of the electoral system grown and have opportunities existed for those who believe that the only criterion is to win in any circumstances. The Government's fiddling and tampering has given comfort to them. Public confidence has been undermined—not just by this shocking fraud but also by the confused mishmash of voting systems that have been introduced. That did not happen by accident; it was the result of deliberate legislation by this Government. Again, one would expect some acceptance of responsibility and some hint of apology—but there has been none.
	I believe, and I know that most people in this House believe, that casting a vote in person and in secret wherever possible is how we should conduct our electoral system. Does the Minister share that view?
	The Statement made a great deal of the need to increase participation in elections. We all favour that, and we have endlessly discussed in this House the ways that would benefit that end. But lack of confidence in the electoral system is not going to improve that situation. The Statement said that postal voting offered an easy and accessible way to participate. The trouble is that, as set up by the Government, the system is now completely tarnished. Few things will discourage participation more than if people think that their honest vote can be swamped by dishonest ones. So, how can the Minister assure the House that voting in the forthcoming election will be secure?
	The Statement did not offer any guarantee of that. Indeed, as Judge Mawrey rightly said, it could not do so, given past complacency by the Government. All that has been offered are yet more guidelines to returning officers and police on how to cope with the consequences of the Government's ill thought-out laws. But what are those guidelines? Will there be any changes to the delivery and collection of postal votes and to the verification of true signatures on the forms? Perhaps noble Lords saw the programme on BBC last night where two signatures on the same form were compared. Without a shred of doubt, they looked entirely different.
	An extra £l0 million of taxpayers' money has been allotted to help police a system that the Labour Party itself has helped to discredit. But what is that £10 million going to do? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
	The judge said that our electoral system—thanks to this Government's legislation—was open to,
	"electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic".
	I cannot think that there is any pride to be taken from that. Is it not astonishing that, in a cradle of democracy, we have come to that?
	We must, and can, do far better than this complacent Statement. I am glad to say that, with the announcement of the election today, it may not be for this Government to make the decisions, it will be for us to make them. We will be making far better ones than these.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, let us not forget that, a year ago, we were assured by Ministers in this House and in another place that the sort of problems that we now know occurred in Birmingham with postal voting could not occur. I believe that the country owes a great debt of gratitude to Judge Mawrey for helping to expose what he called a,
	"massive, systematic and organised fraud".
	A debt of gratitude is also owed to Mr John Hemming for his perseverance in pursuing this issue. As the judge in the case said yesterday:
	"when all that is said and done, Mr Hemming was right and his critics were wrong. He said that there was a massive, Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour Party and there was in fact a massive, Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour Party".
	Mr Hemming, he said,
	"emerges from the case with credit which is more than can be said for those police officers who treated his complaints as no more than Operation Gripe".
	The case in Birmingham highlights how wrong Ministers were to give us those assurances a year ago. I see from the Statement today that the Minister is suggesting that new measures are being taken to toughen up on procedures, but is she aware that the new commission guidelines, to which she referred, while perhaps being more realistic, are softer than the guidelines that applied a year ago when this fraud took place.
	We have been assured that there will be tough action by police against fraud in such matters. We were assured of that a year ago, before the June elections in which fraud took place. When people in Birmingham were concerned about that huge fraud, the initial police reaction was to dismiss it entirely as sour grapes. What greater assurance can we have now that the police will take instances of alleged fraud more seriously in this general election?
	The case has shown how hard it is under the present rules to detect and assess the level of fraud in postal voting; how reluctant hard-pressed police officers can be to pursue fraud that may cheat people of their democratic rights; and how widespread fraud is perfectly possible under the system. All parties agree that postal voting should be a legitimate option for voters, but we must as a matter of urgency reform the process thoroughly after the general election.
	In the mean time, there are a number of steps that could be taken, if all parties agreed on them, before this general election—if there was sufficient goodwill. First, we could have the postal votes counted separately in the general election. That would help us to see more obviously whether something was amiss in the system. Secondly, the forms by which people apply for a postal vote could be publicly available in the same way as are the declarations of identity that accompany the ballot papers when they are returned. It is possible for parties to scrutinise those declarations of identity to satisfy themselves afterwards about who has signed the declaration. The parties should also be able to see the forms by which people apply for postal votes.
	From the Birmingham case, we have seen how difficult it is to gather such evidence in time, at great expense, to pursue the case. The period for launching an election petition should be changed from 21 days to, perhaps, two months, to allow sufficient time for people to gather the evidence necessary for an investigation into potential fraud, if that is the only option open to them.
	Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, a requirement could be made on presiding officers to maintain a list of all those people who turn up to polling stations only to find that someone has previously claimed a postal vote in their name. At present, they are denied a vote. At the moment, if they turn up to a polling station and they have not registered for a postal vote, but someone has previously claimed their vote by turning up to a polling station, they can be given a further ballot paper. If it may be significant to the result, that ballot paper may be counted. But if you go to a polling station to find that someone in your name has claimed a postal vote on your behalf, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That would be a sensible reform to the process that could be easily and speedily introduced.
	Finally, the Government—and all parties—should show their support for upholding democratic principles by saying clearly before the election and in time for voters to judge their statement that they rule out any further extension of postal voting until the major sources of abuse have been removed.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, first, I completely understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was unable to be here for the beginning of the Statement. I take very seriously what has happened in Birmingham and I condemn completely and utterly the actions of those who have been found wanting, to put it at its mildest, in what they have done. I treasure our democracy, as I know that every Member of your Lordships' House does—although we find ourselves in a slightly odd position in that—and I take it very seriously.
	It is fair to say that in his remarks the judge made it clear that he attributed no blame to the national Labour Party. He was very clear about where he placed that blame, which is right and proper. So although I very much regret what happened in Birmingham, it is not something for which the national Labour Party takes responsibility, in that sense. Our responsibility is to ensure that these matters are dealt with properly. Noble Lords will have read the statements issued by the Labour Party about ensuring that we work closely with those in Birmingham to ensure that elections are now run properly.
	I recognise the criticisms that the judge made and accept that it was right and proper for him to make them. However, it is also right to say that the remarks attributed by the judge to the Department for Constitutional Affairs left off the end of the statement. We stated:
	"However, we are not being complacent about the issue and are planning to issue a number of further safeguards into the electoral process to combat any possible fraud".
	It is important to recognise that the Government take that extremely seriously.
	As the noble Baroness said, a large number of people prefer not to use postal voting and that is right and proper. But, as noble Lords will know from the history of postal voting, many people for one reason or another find it impossible to go to the polling station at the appropriate time and it is right and proper that we offer them alternative ways to exercise their democratic right.
	I, for one, am keen that as we move into a new era of technology we exploit all opportunities to encourage people to exercise their democratic right, provided—I accept this point—that we can maintain safety and security in so doing. It is wrong, as I fear that the noble Baroness was suggesting, simply to say that we stick with one method, not recognising that some people in our society find it physically difficult, because of disability and other reasons, to go to a polling station. I can remember that as a young mum with small children it was pretty difficult to get to the polling station in the rain—although of course I always made it. It is always important to think carefully about the opportunities that we give people.
	However, I agree about the central point of ensuring that people can vote in safety and secrecy and know that their ballot is counted. I do not accept that this is complete tarnishing, by any stretch of the imagination. I repeat that it is important to recognise that these are isolated incidents. They raise important and difficult issues, but they are not tantamount to widespread fraud in this country. That is completely wrong. We have 6,000 wards, and only four wards are in question. For many reasons, but not least to ensure that our public message is clear, we must be clear about the integrity of our system.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said that the new guidelines are softer. That is interesting, but they have not yet been circulated, so he knows more than I do. Perhaps he could supply me with a copy of them. They are currently being considered through the Electoral Commission. I do not believe that they will be softer; they are meant to be clearer and more certain. I recognise the noble Lord's great experience in all matters concerning elections and his comments on the judgment relating to the police. As I said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs will meet the Association of Chief Police Officers tomorrow. Very much on his mind will be discussions on how we protect the ballot appropriately for the general and other elections.
	We will consider the particular issues raised by the noble Lord. It is important to pick up suggestions that are made. I shall not try to do so now, but will do so properly. He will recognise that, having accepted many of the recommendations in Voting for change, we need to bring forward primary legislation to make the changes. Not long ago in your Lordships' House, I answered questions from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who I see is not in his place today, on observers at elections. We need primary legislation to alter who can be at a count: something that we are looking to do.
	We have an additional £20 million for the 2005 elections, compared to 2001; £10 million of that is to cover the extra cost of the increased demand for postal votes. It will cover costs of staffing, and so on. We have written to all returning officers asking them to think proactively about what they can do; that will be followed up. I trust that that money will be wisely spent to ensure that we deal with all the issues raised.
	Much has been made of the four areas where we had all-postal ballots. None of the allegations reflects on them in any way—there were allegations, but there have been no convictions in any of those areas.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, this Statement is timely and urgent. The Minister referred to the absence of my noble friend Lord Greaves. He could have added a lot about the fact that incidents are not restricted to Birmingham and there have been problems elsewhere, including his part of east Lancashire.
	The Statement is urgent in that there will be a perception in the next few days that at least 80 per cent of those with a postal ballot are likely to vote, compared with 60 per cent or less of those without one. Therefore, many in the political process will hope to get more postal ballots in the next two or three weeks, for the understandable reason that they believe that 80 per cent or more of those with a postal ballot will vote.
	As regards the legislation, the die is cast. But between now and Friday all the political parties could sign up to a code of conduct on what their helpers should be doing, and certainly what they should not be doing, when handling postal votes in the general election. If the parties signed up, people would know where they stood and what they should not get up to. Giving people a piece of paper and saying, "If you want a postal vote, sign that" is one thing, but it is an entirely different matter when the vote itself returns. It is important that the parties lay down from the centre what they believe is the right and proper approach, and that all parties sign up to it.

Lord Biffen: My Lords—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have to respond to each noble Lord in turn, but I shall be brief.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the code of conduct is very important; I have a copy of it before me. I do not know whether it will be signed up to by Friday, as there are probably logistical issues. I think that the Statement said that it is very important that we send out from the centre the message that people must follow the code of conduct and sign up to it as candidates, canvassers and participants, and that we want a proper, democratic election to take place on 5 May. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on that point.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, would an alteration in the law be required to enable postal votes to be collected and counted separately?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure whether it would, but I shall endeavour to answer the noble Lord's question in the next few minutes. Most of the recommendations in Voting for Change, which suggested along similar lines different ways of approaching the voting system, would require primary legislation because the current legislation is very specific about what can be done. It would therefore not surprise me if it were required.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there have been many more instances than were reported of what went on in Birmingham? For instance, an ex-constituent of mine, a little old lady, was terrorised by four huge men coming to her door and demanding to have her postal vote so that they could fill it out. Bearing in mind those and other factors that have been reported, will the noble Baroness assure the House that, so long as she is in any position to decide on those matters, universal postal voting will not be enforced in any area?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it has already been made clear in your Lordships' House that there is no plan for further all-postal ballots at this stage. I never say "never" because, as I said earlier, it is important to think carefully about the opportunities that we give people to vote. The traditional method of voting is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has already said; I take nothing away from that. But we must provide more opportunities for people, particularly as they work longer or different hours, away from home and so on, by giving them alternative methods. I am not ruling out alternative methods. The noble Baroness will probably be pleased enough to hear that at this stage there are no plans to have all-postal voting.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that in 99 per cent of the United Kingdom postal balloting is totally trouble-free, and that in reality the problem is in small pockets? Can we target the resources being allocated at areas where it is more likely that postal balloting fraud will take place?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend says. Allegations have certainly been made in a number of places, but, as I have indicated, there have been very few convictions. We need to look very carefully at those. But it cannot always be assumed that fraud will take place in any particular place. One might target resources where allegations have been made before, but if the allegations were unfounded we might be failing to do what is required. It is critical that, through the available money and the work that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will do with the Association of Chief Police Officers and returning officers, we focus carefully on making fraud impossible.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, ballot papers must be mixed before they are counted, so they could not be counted separately without primary legislation.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, do the Government accept or reject the conclusions of the learned judge who determined that the system introduced by Labour in 2001 is,
	"farcical, hopelessly insecure and contains no effective safeguards and is an invitation to fraud"?
	Do they accept, as the judge undoubtedly thought, that so long as the rules introduced by Labour in 2001 remain in force, there will be massive fraud? If the Government do not accept that, why not, and what good is a code of conduct if the system has no built-in safeguards?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have read the summary of the judge's verdict very carefully. I have the 192-page document, but I have not yet read it in detail. I do not recall any specific reference to the legislation introduced in 2001 in the executive summary but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, can correct me.
	The judge pointed to a series of problems in Birmingham, about which he felt very strongly. I take great care to consider the applicability of what the judge has said across the whole system. It is very important that we work closely with the Electoral Commission to see what further must be done to prevent fraud. I am not complacent about what the judge has said. He has made known his views very strongly; it is right and proper for him to do so. We are looking at the judgment. It is our responsibility to try to ensure via codes of conduct—they are an important part because parties need carefully to send out a signal—and our work with returning officers, individual parties and the police that fraud cannot happen again.
	Unquestionably, the judge has very clearly signalled what he believes is a real problem. It is for us to ensure that in the forthcoming election we address it. My point is that in the vast majority of cases in this country postal voting works extremely well. I would be reluctant to imply that we needed to do more than take those points seriously and address them.

Lord Garden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is ironic that she reminded us that postal voting was generated to help servicemen, when there is now such a shambles over postal voting for service people? The Electoral Commission distributed leaflets that have arrived too late to be of any use. They say something that is completely counter to the Queen's Regulations for the Army about overseas postal voting. At the moment, the services will be the one group disenfranchised at the election on 5 May.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it would be a terrible pity if there were any disenfranchisement at any election in this country. I will look carefully at those comments, as I have neither ministerial responsibility for this area nor the ability to answer the noble Lord properly. However, it is a very important point.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, as I understand the noble Baroness, she said that this was the fault, not of the Labour Party, but of the Birmingham Labour Party. Is that not rather like the Ministry of Defence saying that abuse of Iraqi prisoners is not its fault but only the fault of the regiment in which it happened?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not think that it has anything like the significance of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
	My point was that, if the Labour Party nationally had been held to account by the judge, I would be the first to come to your Lordships' House and apologise: it was not. Responsibility was put at the door of what were seen to be particular practices that were inappropriate at best, and corrupt at worst. I am sorry that it happened, and I think that it is important that the Labour Party takes its responsibilities seriously, but I would not for one moment suggest anything other than that this party believes absolutely 100 per cent in democracy. That is critical.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the answer that the Minister has just given mean that the Labour Party does not accept responsibility for the actions of its candidates? Surely, that is nonsense.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I did not say that. If the noble Lord reads the statement put out by the Labour Party, he will see that we have already suspended the six councillors and that they will be subject to party discipline. We have appointed a senior member of the executive committee to oversee the election in Birmingham, and we have made it clear that that must include making sure that the code of conduct is adhered to. Every member of the Labour Party in Birmingham will be written to by that person—Mike Griffiths—and the letter will include a copy of the code of conduct.
	We take our responsibilities very seriously, but the fraud was not conducted by the national Labour Party; it was particular to the Labour Party in Birmingham. As the noble Lord will know from his experience in his own party, one must be clear about the difference between, on the one hand, taking responsibility and taking action—that is right and proper—and, on the other, saying that something is rotten or wrong in the Labour Party itself.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the Minister said that voters had welcomed the convenience of postal votes and had indicated that they were popular. Unfortunately, postal votes also afford convenience to and enjoy popularity among fraudsters. In preparing for this afternoon's Statement, has the noble Baroness reread the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to similar questions last summer? He expressed overwhelming confidence in the integrity of the postal voting arrangements, a confidence that has been serially proved wrong by events.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have not read all the answers that my noble friend gave, but I am sure that I would have agreed with him about the need to make things clear. There has been fraud and corruption in two out of 6,000 wards. It has been discovered and dealt with by a judge, and there may or may not be other proceedings. It is important to recognise that.
	We should protect and sustain postal voting or other forms of voting that give voters the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in ways that are convenient for them for whatever reason, and we should make sure that they can happen. I take seriously what was said in the judgment. With the Electoral Commission, we must consider carefully what safeguards can be put in place. I have also said that we plan to use primary legislation when time allows in the new Parliament—whoever is standing here—to make sure that we can do all of that. We are not complacent, but I do not wish to get the matter out of perspective.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords—

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, may we hear from my noble friend Lady Lockwood?

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, we must consider the difference between the Government and the Labour Party. The parties are responsible for organisation in the constituency parties. I am sure that active members of parties will not be able to do other than agree with me that all parties have, since the postal voting system was extended under, I think, the Representation of the People Act 1948, been anxious to maximise their vote.
	I have been a Labour Party agent, and I have had conversations with Conservative Party agents and with Liberal agents. All of us have worked to a similar pattern. Up until the previous election, there have been no problems. It is unfortunate that, in the previous European and local elections, there was this incident in what is, if we take into account the electorate as a whole, a small area of the country.
	It is not my noble friend who should answer for the Labour Party; the Labour Party has already answered for itself by taking disciplinary action against members who have undertaken illegal action in the name of the party. That is exactly what any other political party would have done in the circumstances.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend has great experience of the issues, and I agree with her that all political parties have sought to maximise the opportunities provided by postal voting.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, what has happened to the concept of accountability in government? This issue has arisen not because of what happened in 1948 but because the Government chose to change the rules in the teeth of opposition in this House and from the Electoral Commission. How can the Minister say that the Labour Party has no responsibility? The Labour Party is the Government, and the Government did this. I greatly admire the Minister, but I do not understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not here to deal with the matter, which is of the utmost seriousness.
	While we are on the subject of accountability, I ask why no Minister or no representative of the Electoral Commission was available to speak on the "Today" programme and other programmes this morning, when the whole nation was appalled by what had happened in Birmingham. The commission seems to bombard us with paper every day of the week, so why was there silence on this subject? Are the Government hoping to sweep it under the carpet because it is embarrassing? The embarrassment comes from the failure of the Government to listen to advice and their determination to do everything possible to get their vote out in the face of the disillusion among their supporters.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, sometimes I cannot win. Yesterday, it was clear to me that we should make a Statement on the matter, and I felt that it was right and proper to make the Statement to Parliament, rather than on the "Today" programme. I also think that it was important to have the full judgment before us—as I said, I have not had a chance to read the 192-page judgment in detail, although I shall—to make sure that we did not in any way say anything that was not appropriate. I make no apology for coming to the House first; that is right and proper.
	The thing that I find difficult about the debate is that much of the opposition to which noble Lords have referred and the famous ping-pong related to the all-postal voting pilots. They are nothing to do with these votes, which were run on traditional lines, as it were. The point that I was making was that it was important to consider the issue in the context of our national voting system and the way in which postal votes are used.
	I accept responsibility and accountability in the sense that it is important that the Government act now with the Association of Chief Police Officers, returning officers and the Electoral Commission to deal with the issues properly. When I said that I did not believe that it was a national Labour Party issue, I was referring to the fact that the judge was not suggesting that the national Labour Party was fraudulent or corrupt in any way—quite the opposite. The judge was saying that it was clear that the issue had arisen in the Birmingham Labour Party and therefore the responsibility of the national Labour Party is to deal with that. The party has taken the action that I mentioned.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Garden mentioned the injustice that might be done to military personnel in the coming general election. We know that postal votes will possibly be posted out in the constituencies by, say, 23 or 24 April. How can we be certain that, wherever troops who are eligible to vote by post are, they will receive those votes in time to complete them and return them for inclusion in the count in their constituency? What assurance can the Minister give us on that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will be unsurprised to hear that I cannot give him details about voting by military personnel at this stage. It is not in the brief that I have because it is not part of my ministerial responsibility. I commit to responding properly to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and I will put a copy of the letter in the Library, so that the noble Lord is fully satisfied. I shall ask my ministerial colleagues to be in touch with him, if he has any further questions in that area.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in another place I had the privilege of having three recounts for 179 and three recounts for 142, but I had the confidence that the postal vote was valid and secure? I recognise that the Minister has said some brave words today which are full of good intent. If we are to have a code of conduct, one thing that could be done is to ensure that the returning officer has the strength and the power to reject any postal vote that he believes to be suspect. At present he does not have that right, but, in the current circumstances, he certainly needs it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, all those recounts must have been exciting. I agree with the noble Lord. It is very important that in the work now done with returning officers—which is under way, as a letter went out this morning—we ensure that they have the ability to deal with those issues in the right way. As the noble Lord knows from answers that I have already given, there are issues that can be dealt with without primary legislation, which, in this area, for good reason, are very specific. It is our intention to tighten legislation where necessary to ensure that we deal with those issues properly in order to give precisely what the noble Lord wants; namely, confidence in the coming election.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for speaking somewhat out of turn, but I know that there has been a great deal of anxiety about two parts of the Bill. I thought that it would be useful to the Committee if I indicated the position of the Government now.
	The first matter concerns the provisions relating to incitement of religious hatred. Members of the Committee will know that a great deal of time was spent on that issue at Second Reading and that the Government profoundly believe that an offence of incitement to religious hatred is necessary in order to provide equality of protection for our communities. The protection needed is from extremist activity and the type of activity that contributed to the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley in 2001. We believe that it is time that we reject such behaviour wholeheartedly and make a stand about the type of society in which we want to live. From the Second Reading debate, I know that that is a view strongly held by the Members of this House.
	That said, we are in an unusual situation. The election has now been called. Other parties have made it clear that they oppose the provision as drafted. Given all the other important measures in the Bill, including those to help defeat organised crime and animal rights extremists, it would be wrong to lose the whole Bill for the sake of that one measure.
	None the less, it is with considerable regret that I advise the Committee that the Government will not oppose the Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain; namely, that Clause 124 and Schedule 10 do not stand part of the Bill. However, the Government remain firmly of the view that there should be equality for those of all faiths, and of none, in law. We cannot see why it is right to retain protection in law for Jews and Sikhs, but wrong not to extend it to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and other faiths. It remains the firm and clear intention of this Government to give the people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion.
	The other matter that caused a deal of concern, which it might help the Committee if I deal with at this stage, relates to custody officers. I am aware of concerns about Clauses 116 and 117, which provide for the civilianisation of custody officers. I can assure the Committee that there is no intention to dilute the key role of the custody officer, nor to dilute the ability of the custody officer to act independently of the investigative process.
	Dealing with the skills and abilities issue, the chief officer must be satisfied that a person designated as a staff custody officer is suitable, capable and has received adequate training. National occupational standards, developed by Skills for Justice, are already in place and have formed the basis for an integrated competency framework, which sets out the tasks and outcomes to be achieved in the custody officer role.
	Centrex, the national police training agency, is developing guidance that, in turn, will set out how the standards are to be achieved. As a result of those initiatives, we will have clearly set out occupational standards for use by both police and police staff employed in that task. The authority and the independence of the role is set out in PACE, which provides the custody officer with recourse to a superintendent in the event that his or her authority is questioned. That will not change.
	We fully recognise that it serves the interests of no one to undermine the authority of a custody officer. In rolling out these provisions we will ensure that that message is heard loud and clear by all concerned. We know that this is an issue that has caused anxiety. We hope that the clarity with which I have just expressed our intent will greatly assist Members of the Committee, so that this will be a matter with which they may feel able to be content.

Baroness O'Cathain: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, sits down, perhaps the Committee may allow me to say how very grateful I am for what she has just said. But she has given notice that she will fight vigorously for the reintroduction of the clause. I give the noble Baroness notice that I will do precisely the same.

Schedule 1 [The Serious Organised Crime Agency]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 133, line 9, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
	"(aa) such number of ex-officio members and other members ("ordinary members") as the Secretary of State may determine"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In speaking to Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for their support. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the board of the Serious Organised Crime Agency cannot be controlled by the Secretary of State. We believe that there should be built-in symmetry between the ex officio members and ordinary members. Our amendments would preserve political accountability without allowing political control.
	I will now address my amendments in a little detail, but not too much. At this stage, it might be helpful if I say that I understand that the Minister may be able to make certain representations in response to this group of amendments which will further assist the progress of the Bill today. Obviously, whatever the Minister says in regard to my amendments may not bind any other Members of the Committee. But if the noble Baroness is able to give certain undertakings, it may be that I will not need to move a considerable number of my amendments.
	Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the composition of the Serious Organised Crime Agency board and contemplates a board that will comprise three categories of member: namely, the chairman, to be appointed by the Secretary of State; ex officio members who are to include the director general of SOCA and other employees of SOCA who will be appointed by the director general after consultation with the chairman; and the so-called "ordinary" members who will be appointed directly by the Secretary of State. There are no qualifying conditions that ordinary members must meet, so the Secretary of State is left with an unfettered choice. He also appoints, of course, the director-general. The board is therefore limited to the direct appointees of the Secretary of State—the chairman and the ordinary members—and the appointees of the director-general, who is himself an appointee.
	A further significant provision to which the members are essentially directed is set out in paragraph 1(2)(b), and states that,
	"the number of ordinary members . . . must not at any time be less than the number of ex-officio members".
	That is clearly designed to prevent the ordinary members being regularly outvoted by the ex-officio members. We hope that the board would not be split on a regular basis between the ex-officio members and the ordinary members appointed directly by the Secretary of State, but it would be a prudent step to ensure that the ex-officio members do not have a controlling majority. In other words, a balance should be built in.
	My amendments would allow the Secretary of State to determine the total number of board members, to appoint the ordinary members and would continue to allow the director-general to appoint the ex-officio members. There would still be a minimum board size of four members as well as a chairman. Finally, and most important, they would ensure that the number of ex-officio and ordinary members was equal and that, as usual, the chairman would have a casting vote. As ever, one would expect the chairman to act impartially.
	Those are the objectives of these amendments, which reflect the wider concern I expressed at Second Reading that the Serious Organised Crime Agency should have operational independence from the Home Secretary. We believe that that is the key to its success, although I recognise that it must be accountable for its work.
	Amendments in other groupings reflect that concern, in particular the next group. I shall be cautious not to stray into addressing another group, but perhaps I may carefully mention it in the briefest terms. The next group reflects my concern that the powers of the Home Secretary in setting the strategic priorities of SOCA are too stringent at the moment. They would give him too much authority. If, in her response to the first group of amendments, the noble Baroness was able to give a more general indication of her response to my concerns about Part 1, I believe that I will then be able to indicate that other amendments may not need to be moved. Given that I am always optimistic in these matters, I have ready for the Chairman of Committees a note to explain this in some detail. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I support Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, and to which I have added my name. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris. As we made clear on Second Reading, we do not have any objections in principle to the setting up of SOCA, but it is right to point out that the agency will be a unique body in this country and it is only right to address some of the anomalies, as we see them.
	My noble friend Lady Harris, a one-time member of a police authority, has done much research work in relation to our amendments, and I am sorry that she is not able to contribute fully to the debate because of her recent accident.
	Schedule 1 covers the board of SOCA. It is most important that the composition of the board for this new agency is right and therefore we wish to add the suggestions made in Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. We are concerned that, under the provisions of paragraph 1, the Secretary of State has been granted too wide a discretion on the make-up of the board. We believe it is important that SOCA should benefit from the experience of existing law enforcement agencies, will serve their needs and will be accountable to them. These amendments would mean that SOCA would more closely resemble the service authorities currently governing the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. We also believe it essential for the maintenance of the rule of law that SOCA is subject to independent oversight and that it should not have such a close and exclusive relationship with a single government department.
	The tripartite balance between the Secretary of State, the board of SOCA and the director-general is presently skewed, giving too much power to the Secretary of State. It is essential for a rebalancing to take place on the membership of the agency. Left as it is, there would be little scrutiny of its work, which none of us would like to see. Some form of accountability must be provided. Giving this scrutiny to a Cabinet committee completely politicises the agency. Where is there any sort of cross-party view of what the organisation will be doing? At the very least, it could be subject to the scrutiny of the proposed Joint Committee on security—or whatever it is called. It is not acceptable to appoint a board which does not reflect all the bodies which have a legitimate interest in the work of the agency.
	We are broadly supported in our amendments by the suggestion put forward by Justice. The agencies to be replaced by SOCA, the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, are maintained by service authorities established by the Police Act 1997. These service authorities have varied memberships. The National Crime Squad's website states that the service authority includes independent members, police authority members, senior police officers, a Customs officer, a member of the Security Service and a senior civil servant from the Home Office. The service authority therefore benefits from a breadth of experience that spans most of the key agencies and stakeholders that the NCS needs to work with. Given that, the structure of SOCA must maintain in some way this level of independence and pluralism.
	There are no external or independent members on the board, no members appointed by other law enforcement agencies, and no members appointed by the police authorities. There are no requirements in paragraph 1 on the make-up of the category of ordinary members appointed by the Home Secretary. He must consult Scottish Ministers before appointing the chairman, but need not consult anyone on the appointment of the ordinary members.
	It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law that law enforcement agencies be subject to independent oversight and that they have a measure of operational independence from the Executive. It is highly undesirable that an agency with such extensive powers in relation to information gathering, investigation and prosecution should have such a close and exclusive relationship with a single government department.
	The current structure of the board may result in a lack of genuine transparency and accountability. We believe that it provides inadequate safeguards against interferences with fundamental rights and ultimately promotes the politicisation of important policing functions. We therefore recommend in the strongest terms that it should be reinforced with independent oversight and that such oversight is maintained.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to rectify this situation and suggests a series of people who should be represented on the SOCA board.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This Bill is now in some confusion. I raised the matter when the Government Chief Whip outlined what was to happen as the result of a general election being called. I expressed my doubts about whether such an important Bill should go through all its stages in this House in such a short time. I still believe that to be true. However, I understand from the Opposition Chief Whip and later from the Government Chief Whip that certain discussions have been held, arrangements made and agreements reached between the parties on alterations that are to be made to the Bill.
	So far as I can see, only one alteration has been made, which is that the clause dealing with incitement to religious hatred is not to be proceeded with at this point. But many other aspects of the Bill, which will be raised in later amendments, deserve a great deal of consideration. Indeed, although I missed the Second Reading debate, I am not at all sure that I am in favour of SOCA itself or that this is the way to deal with serious organised crime. We are putting in place what is, in reality, a Federal Bureau of Investigation by another name, and I am concerned that this organisation will have powers over local police forces and chief constables.
	I must not make a Second Reading speech—I do not intend to do so—but I wished to raise that point and the whole question of what has been agreed between the parties to allow this very important Bill to go through. Many representations have been made about the Bill. The police, in particular, have raised a large number of concerns. When she replies, perhaps the Minister will give more details of the conversations and agreements which have taken place to make the Bill more acceptable to those it will affect.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall be very happy to assist the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as far as I can. It is quite clear that certain issues were raised at Second Reading which gave rise to concerns on the part of both Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Party. In my responses to the amendments as they arise, I shall seek to allay those concerns by giving fuller explanations of how the Government intend to respond to the matters raised by each of the two parties.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right to highlight the fact that the major arrangement has been in relation to incitement to religious hatred, which caused the most contention. I also made reference to the role of custody officers and I shall now deal with other issues which, although less contentious, are still matters of concern. As we go through the issues, I shall indicate on each amendment the way in which they will be dealt with.
	If, as I hope, I am able to satisfy the Committee that the Government's explanations are sound, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has indicated that she would not seek to move some of her amendments. It is very difficult for me to pre-empt her because the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, will wait to see whether I hold good in my explanations and my promises.
	So, with that proviso, it might assist if I now dealt with Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, which have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I hope that my explanations will be sufficient to quieten the beating hearts that have raised concerns about the next group of amendments, which includes Amendment No. 6 through to Clauses 9 and 10 stand part. I shall resist certain of those amendments but I may be in a position to accept other amendments which deal adequately with the issues.
	I turn to the explanations on the first group of amendments. The effect of the three amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would be to alter the balance of the SOCA board's membership and draw it further away from the normal practice of other non-departmental public bodies. While I commend her desire to ensure the best governance arrangements for SOCA, I can tell her that her fears about political influence over the board are wholly unfounded. Let me explain why. The ordinary members of the board will be appointed on merit and, once appointed, will take decisions on the basis of their own independent judgment. They are in no sense the representatives of the Home Secretary.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 provide that the number of ordinary and ex officio board members must be the same. At this point it is worth reminding the Committee that, typically, the board of a non-departmental public body is composed entirely of the equivalent of ordinary members. We have therefore already moved a considerable way in the direction proposed by the noble Baroness in providing for the appointment of ex officio members.
	The role of ordinary members is vital. They will be drawn from a variety of backgrounds, with a wealth of experience, and will ensure the accountability of the executive members of SOCA. If the board of SOCA is not simply to act as the director-general's management committee, it is important that the non-executive members are in a clear majority. I therefore commend the existing structure to the Committee.
	Amendment No. 4 would limit the role that the chair is able to play in the decision-making process of SOCA's board. This is an untenable situation considering that the chair has overall responsibility for ensuring that the agency fulfils the aims and priorities set out by statute and the Home Secretary. Once again, this proposal goes against the grain. The chairman must have a full role in decision making.
	Turning to the amendments standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, I respectfully suggest that these proposals would make SOCA's board similarly unbalanced—and, indeed, unmanageable—in a way that neither of them would like or intend.
	I must stress again that SOCA will not be a police force, although it will clearly be a law enforcement agency. It will work very closely with police forces in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the intelligence agencies and other organisations involved in tackling organised crime. As it will not be a police force, it follows that it would be inappropriate to mirror the tripartite framework on the SOCA board.
	Similarly, we do not see the case for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Immigration Service to be represented on the board. We accept that these will be important stakeholders, but no more or less important than a host of other agencies with which SOCA will need to work. We want the ordinary members to be appointed on the basis of the skills, experience and independent judgment they can bring to the agency's deliberations, not because they represent a particular organisation or interest.
	It is also worth pointing out that the effect of Amendment No. 5 would be that the SOCA board would comprise a minimum of 16 individuals—that is, 10 ordinary members, the chairman, the director-general and four planned ex officio members. We submit that this would be too big for the efficient and effective conduct of the board's business.
	In the light of these explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment, anticipating that I shall accept Amendment No. 10 and the submission on Clause 10 stand part, which we shall come to next.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for giving, as ever, a full response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and myself. I appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who is right to seek to clarify where we might be going with the remainder of the Bill today. As the Minister said, I am eagerly awaiting every word to ensure that we are both going down more or less the same route.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was particularly right to refer to the representations that have been made by the Police Federation and others. I have had meetings with the Police Federation, read its briefings with great care and, indeed, where possible, sought to refer to them, not only in my speaking notes but in tabling some of my amendments. I have sought to distil from that some of the concerns felt and achieve some movement today, which I think we are now seeing from the Minister. I hear what she says about her refusal to accept my first group of amendments. I bear that with equanimity. The noble Baroness argues that I should have no concern because the board of SOCA will be independent and the people who are appointed to it will be of such calibre that they will exercise their duties in a proper and independent way.
	I also appreciate that those persons who have been appointed as chair and chief executive of SOCA are of the very highest proven ability. But as ever in this House, we must be concerned to ensure that legislation provides the right framework not only for today but for the future.
	The noble Baroness said at the end of her remarks that although she turns her back on my first group of amendments, she is prepared to accept my Amendment No. 10 and will not expect Clause 10 to stand part. She has there responded to my concerns about performance targets. I thank her for that and, in withdrawing this amendment, I give notice that I do not expect to move any further amendments in my name to this part of the Bill. I anticipate that I will be very sparing in moving further amendments to other parts, although some will need to be moved to give the Government the opportunity to make further progress to clarify discussions that have already been held. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Functions of SOCA as to information relating to crime]:
	[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Exercise of functions: general considerations]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 3, line 29, leave out from "SOCA" to end of line 30.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The amendment was tabled because of my concerns about the relationship of the Secretary of State with SOCA. Unless Members of the Committee wish me to expand on it, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 3, line 30, at end insert ", and
	(d) SOCA's obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) and in particular section 6 of that Act (Act of public authorities),"

Lord Dholakia: The purpose of the amendment is that SOCA should have regard to the code of practice and be bound by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it is a public authority. However, for the 1998 Act to be fully effective, it is necessary that the victim of an interference is aware of it and can complain about it. Since many of SOCA's activities will not be made apparent to those whose rights they engage—for example, information-gathering and disclosure of information—SOCA will not often be fully accountable to victims of interferences. We believe that it is necessary to enhance the protection of fundamental rights, and hope that this will be taken into consideration. It would also be helpful to have an assurance from the Minister that in the exercise of police powers, SOCA will be bound by the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the codes of practice issued under it. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for explaining the thinking behind this group of amendments. In three out of the four amendments, I am with him in principle, but I hope I can persuade him that all four are unnecessary.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 18 would place a duty on SOCA, the Home Secretary and Scottish Ministers, in exercising their functions under the Act, to do so in a way that meets their obligations under the Human Rights Act. As the noble Lord will know, Section 6 of the Human Rights Act already makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with convention rights. That being the case, it is unnecessary to restate the Section 6 duty on public authorities in the Bill. To do so would be not only unnecessary but may be positively harmful.
	There is no equivalent provision in, for example, the Police Act 1996 in respect of police forces or the Police Reform Act 2002 in respect of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The absence of such a provision in these and other statutes where the convention rights are also engaged may lead to the incorrect inference that other public bodies are not bound, in the same way as SOCA, to abide by the convention rights. If these amendments were made, they would cast doubt on the general operation of the 1998 Act.
	Amendment No. 12 would oblige SOCA to give full effect to any code of practice issued under Clause 11 rather than simply "have regard to" the code. The formulation in the Bill is the same as that used in the Police Reform Act which introduced codes of practice for police forces—the NCS and NCIS.
	I can assure the noble Lord that the requirement to "have regard to" a code is a stringent one. SOCA could set aside the provisions of a code only if there were good reason for doing so and if it could demonstrate that it was achieving the standards demanded by a code by other means. If a code was to be binding in all circumstances, the nomenclature of a code of practice would no longer be apt and we would instead be looking at a regulation-making power. I suggest that the wording of subsection (3) of Clause 4 gets the balance about right and should stand.
	Finally, Amendment No. 13 would provide that SOCA is to be bound by the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, including the PACE codes of practice. I can assure the noble Lord that, where a SOCA officer is designated with any of the powers in PACE, the officer will be subject to the same conditions or limitations on the exercise of those powers that would apply in the circumstances of a police officer exercising the same powers. Where, for example, a SOCA officer exercises the powers of arrest and search under PACE, they will need to be exercised in accordance with the relevant PACE codes of practice.
	I hope that in the light of these assurances, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
	Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 5 agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 14:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"POLICE MEMBERS OF SOCA TO HAVE POWERS OF CONSTABLE ETC.
	(1) A police member of SOCA—
	(a) shall have the powers of a constable;
	(b) subject to subsection (2) below, may have the customs powers of an officer of Revenue and Customs;
	(c) subject to subsection (3) below, may have the immigration powers of an immigration officer.
	(2) A police member of SOCA may exercise the customs powers of an officer of Revenue and Customs only if he has previously exercised those powers or has received such training as would otherwise entitle him to exercise those powers.
	(3) A police member of SOCA may exercise the immigration powers of an immigration officer only if he has previously exercised those powers or has received such training as would otherwise entitle him to exercise those powers.
	(4) In this section "police member" means a police member of SOCA appointed in accordance with paragraph 13A of Schedule 1."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I will speak to Amendment No. 14 only briefly. It refers to the serious concerns we have about Clause 44(1), under which any member of staff of SOCA can be designated as having the powers of a police constable.
	As Members of the Committee will see, my amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 7. We were making such rapid progress earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, did not move Amendment No. 7. I knew that his devotion to that amendment meant that it had to be an error. In briefly introducing my amendment, I recognise the superiority of the noble Lord's amendment on this issue and, since they effectively deal with the same subject, I shall now sit down and allow others to expand on it. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. May I say how much I miss my noble friend Lady Harris, who could have prodded me when it was my time to talk about my amendment?
	This is the most important group of amendments. Clauses 41 to 52 deal with the status of SOCA staff.
	We believe that people exercising police powers should hold the office of constable, with its concomitant duties and independence, and that those exercising customs powers should hold public office and be subject to the duties of an officer of Revenue and Customs. We believe that those exercising immigration powers should be subject to the same duties as an immigration officer. We believe that civilian employees would find it difficult to exercise the degree of independence expected of a police officer and would be more likely to obey illegal orders. Granting powers without the concomitant responsibilities does not provide adequate safeguards against the disproportionate or arbitrary exercise of those powers. It carries the risk that unlawful interferences with fundamental rights will occur and will go unchecked.
	We are also concerned in relation to several other amendments. We support Amendment No. 14. It is important to ensure that police powers can be extended to police members of SOCA.
	Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 are consequential amendments. We believe that only a police member of SOCA should exercise police powers in SOCA investigations. It is precisely because SOCA's remit is national that we believe that this clause must be retained in an amended form to allow police members of SOCA to exercise police powers in all parts of the United Kingdom. Subsection (6) ensures that police members of SOCA are subject to the duties of a constable whenever they exercise police powers, which is an essential safeguard for fundamental rights and the rule of law.
	Clause 51 stand part is also grouped with this amendment. For all the reasons that I have so far given and the strong opposition of the Police Federation, we oppose that the clause stand part. In a recent policy statement, the Government's stated:
	"The Government does not, however, propose to diminish the legal status of the office of constable. To do so would risk undermining the operational discretion and versatility, the personal accountability of constables for their actions, on which the service depends".
	If that would be the effect for the police service generally, the same effect would pertain for SOCA.
	It is illogical to suspend the office of constable when a police officer joins SOCA only to hand back the very same powers under the mandate of the director general. Despite the Government's claim to the contrary SOCA is primarily a crime agency and should be operated by the police. The pursuance of criminals requires both police training and experience as well as an understanding of the exercise of police powers. These are the most important aspects of the amendments in this particular group.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I will not speak for very long on this amendment because I want to hear what the Minister has to say in reply. However, the Police Federation is very concerned about this particular matter and I think that it is right to be concerned. The federation is not only considering its own members— it will apparently recommend them not to take up any posts with SOCA unless some amendment is made. It is also concerned about the effect on the public, and it is rightly concerned about that. I tend to support these amendments, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would have been distraught not to have had this opportunity and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, would have made sure that he was distraught.
	I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendments, but I am afraid that I cannot accept them as they strike at the very heart of our vision of SOCA. I hope that I will be able to explain why they need not be as discomfited by them as at first blush they seem to be.
	We see SOCA as a national law enforcement agency dedicated to fighting serious organised crime; as an independent body corporate with its own culture and its own identity, staffed by its own employees. It will be an agency whose staff will, in their own rights, be as highly regarded and respected as our law enforcement agencies—including our excellent police forces—currently are around the world. We see this measure not simply as bringing the police agencies of NCIS and NCS as well as parts of Customs and the Immigration Service under one roof, but in integrating and building on their experience and expertise, creating a new agency with a new operation—one which will be more than the sum of its parts.
	I fear, however, that these amendments reflect a more traditional approach. By ensuring that the new agency's staff retain "membership" of police, customs and immigration it is effectively a machinery of government change. It would merge the existing constituents into a single unit, but would retain all the institutional and cultural legacies that have hindered the existing constituents' work so far. That is not to say, however, that the current agencies including NCS and NCIS have not had considerable success against organised crime. It is widely acknowledged that they have and I do so again now.
	However, it is also widely acknowledged that a new approach is required if we are to meet the challenges of serious organised criminality of the 21st century. We want to grasp this opportunity to move forward. Under these amendments, the traditional lines of staff and the powers that they can exercise will be maintained and so the same attitudes, systems and approaches will also persist. Lost then would be this opportunity to tackle serious organised crime in a way designed and suited to the 21st century. And in prohibiting civilians from being designated any of the powers of a constable, customs or immigration officer, lost also would be the opportunity to add value and fresh vigour to the operational front line of the agency that individuals from civilian backgrounds would otherwise bring.
	No doubt, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will point to the fact that their amendments enable police members of SOCA to also have customs and immigration powers by designation, so there would still be a body of staff who would potentially bring together all three suites of powers. They may say that they have safeguarded the designations by ensuring that these persons must have either held these powers before—which I suspect would be quite rare—or be trained in them before they can exercise such powers, or, even further, by ensuring that the designated powers can be exercised only for specified investigations.
	It is important to point out that we are also quite clear that such powers are not to be taken lightly and be handed out willy nilly. That is why the Bill ensures that the designation of powers is backed by robust procedures for the Director General of SOCA must be satisfied as to the suitability, capability and proper training of the individuals before he designates these powers to them.
	As for tying designated powers to specific investigations, I am afraid that these will unnecessarily reduce the operational and resource flexibility of the director general and may even add to his administrative and bureaucratic load. Given the investment of selection and training in those designated with certain powers, why not allow the director general the flexibility to deploy them based on operational needs as he sees fit? I fear that there are fundamental problems with the proposals that only police members can have all three suites of power.
	Although I am glad that we are seemingly agreed on one thing, namely, an individual can, in principle, have and exercise the powers of a constable, customs officer and immigration officer all at the same time, I am left wondering why it is that only a police member can potentially exercise the powers of all three? Why not a customs officer or an immigration officer? Or even better, as we would have it, an employee of SOCA free from his previous institution's baggage yet with all the experience and knowledge? Are customs or immigration officers somehow less than their police counterparts in not being suitable or capable to exercise police powers even if they were properly trained? Quite aside from being left with this difficulty, the practical impact of these amendments has not been fully grasped. For, under these proposals, the police members who were able to exercise the full set of powers of a constable and of an immigration and customs officer would effectively become "super police". That would leave SOCA in arguably a worse position than the National Crime Squad because, under the proposed amendments, it is all the powers, or none. But under the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002, the Director-General of NCS could designate staff as investigating officers with a limited array of police powers. Under these proposals, that flexibility would be lost to SOCA.
	In creating a class of "super-police", the amendments run the risk of creating an elitist culture. The potential for real or perceived inequality is obvious. After all, is not the danger of SOCA creaming off the brightest and the best from local police forces all the greater if SOCA itself is seen to be staffed by an elite group of police members? SOCA's staff will be every bit as professional and independent as police officers. We strongly refute the argument that only police officers can be entrusted to discharge these duties.
	I hope that I have shown that these amendments would not only constitute a traditional and overly cautious approach but are also impractical, and it would be a missed opportunity to set up an agency designed audaciously yet with due propriety and legitimacy to tackle and defeat serious organised crime. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment and the noble Lord not to press the matter further.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As usual the Minister makes her arguments very thoroughly and persuasively, but has she been able to persuade the Police Federation, given its fears about political control and the fact that officers of SOCA will not swear allegiance to the Crown, that there are no dangers in that regard? That is really important because, without the co-operation of the ordinary police, SOCA is not going to work very well.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we have taken very seriously indeed the concerns that the Police Federation has expressed in relation to politicisation and independence, in the way in which we have sought to structure the whole of SOCA's framework.
	In one sense, we are caught two ways: either it is said that we are going to create such a honey pot and such an elite system that we will suck out all the very best officers into SOCA, or it is said that the reverse is true and that nobody will want to join it. We believe that neither of those statements is right. We have sought to structure something in a balanced way, which we genuinely hope and believe will attract people of talent and ability into the organisation from the different disciplines that I have described. We desperately need that to happen, if the service which we need for the 21st century is to be delivered to the people of this country.
	We believe that we have the balance right; we hope that we will get experienced officers, but they will have to work hand in glove with all the police forces on whose expertise, good will and hard work they will seek to rely. SOCA will add value; it will not expunge what has already been done—it should enhance it.
	I hope that what I have said reassures Members of this House, along with members of the Police Federation and others, that this is an opportunity to be embraced and not one to be feared.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to intervene again, but I need an answer to the following question, which has also been raised with me.
	Is SOCA to become part of a wider organisation—a sort of Federal Bureau of Investigation within the European Union? Does this measure represent a further Europeanisation of justice and home affairs by stealth? Some people are very concerned about that, and from my long experience of matters European, I know that they get their powers by stealth and by ratchet. I should like a reassurance that this is not yet another stealthy step towards a European FBI, and yet another ratchet to give further powers to the European Union.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I suppose that I should not be surprised that the noble Lord would be anxious about that issue, but the basis for his anxiety is flawed. I reassure him that the reason why SOCA was alighted on as a way forward for Her Majesty's Government and for those of us in Britain is because it addresses a very British need. As I tried to make clear earlier, we have much to be grateful for in terms of the good—almost wonderful—work undertaken on our behalf by the police service, the Immigration Service and all those whom we have mentioned this afternoon. But they and we know that the challenge is greater than the current structure enables them to deliver—and in order to meet that challenge, they and we have to put in place a better and different system. This is our system, to meet our need, which is quintessentially British.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 15:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"CONSULTATION
	(1) SOCA shall make arrangement for obtaining the views of—
	(a) the authorities who between them maintain the police forces in Great Britain and the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
	(b) the Commissioners;
	(c) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate;
	(d) the Security Service;
	(e) the Commissioners for Equality and Human Rights;
	(f) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and
	(g) such other persons or bodies as SOCA considers appropriate,
	about SOCA.
	(2) The Director-General of SOCA shall, after consulting the Board, make arrangement for obtaining the views of—
	(a) the chief officers of police forces in England and Wales;
	(b) the chief constables of police forces in Scotland;
	(c) the Chief Constable of the Police Service for Northern Ireland;
	(d) the Commissioners;
	(e) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate;
	(f) the Security Service;
	(g) the Commissioner for Equality and Human Rights;
	(h) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and
	(i) such other persons or bodies as the Director-General considers appropriate,
	about SOCA.
	(3) Arrangements made under subsection (1) or (2) shall be reviewed from time to time.
	(4) If it appears to the Secretary of State that arrangements made for consultation by SOCA or the Director-General under this section are not adequate for the purposes set out in subsection (1) or (2), he may require the Board or Director-General whose duty it is to make arrangements to submit a report to him under section 12.
	(5) After considering a report submitted under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may require the Board or Director-General who submitted it to review the arrangements and submit a further report to him concerning them.
	(6) SOCA or the Director-General shall be under the same duties to consult when reviewing arrangements as when making them."

Lord Dholakia: Amendment No. 15 is grouped with Amendment No. 17. Its purpose is to ensure that consultation with other law enforcement agencies is required to promote transparency, to have independent oversight of SOCA's work and to ensure co-operation and complementarity between SOCA and the other agencies.
	At present there is no requirement that other law enforcement agencies are represented on the SOCA board, so we believe that the amendment is particularly important. SOCA should also be required to engage in regular consultation with statutory human rights bodies regarding the impact on fundamental rights of its current and future work. After all, those bodies have collectively considerable expertise regarding the obligations of public authorities under the Human Rights Act and the equality legislation. They will be able to assist SOCA in conforming with those obligations. We believe that that will safeguard fundamental rights and help prevent discrimination.
	Amendment No. 17 is proposed because, as this is to be a wholly national service, it is important that consultation with other bodies is written into the Bill. It is simply not good enough to say that SOCA must consult with,
	"such other persons as it considers appropriate".
	It would be a simple matter to put consultative arrangements into practice, and that has a precedent in the national agencies from which SOCA is taking over, from which lessons should be learnt.
	The amendment would promote transparency and independent oversight of SOCA's work—because there is to be precious little of that unless something is written into the Bill. It would also ensure that SOCA's work complemented that of other agencies, with no unnecessary overlap or gaps in the system. That, after all, is what we all want. There is to be no representation of those agencies on SOCA's board, unless the Secretary of State appoints from within their ranks—and we were told in no uncertain manner by the chair of the agency that he does not want anyone from the police authorities. It is also important that SOCA consults the commissioners for equality and human rights, as I said before, because they will be able to offer much help in ensuring that SOCA complies with its obligations under this Act. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Obviously I understand the noble Lord's anxiety. However, we do not agree that the concern is merited.
	I suspect that both these amendments aim to ensure greater accountability and partnership working between SOCA and the specified bodies. It is our view that the Bill makes adequate provision for accountability and partnership working for SOCA as a non-departmental public body and as such I am afraid I cannot commend these amendments to the Committee.
	SOCA and the director-general should be free in as far as is possible to pursue their aim of tackling and defeating the harm caused by serious organised crime. Working in partnership with those persons specified in the lists but also others including, for example, the Assets Recovery Agency, all of the security and intelligence agencies and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency to name but a few, will be a vital part in achieving that aim.
	I have no doubt that to achieve that aim efficiently and effectively, SOCA will consult the appropriate persons relevant to its business matters including before it issues its annual plan. In view of this I feel that prescribing a limited list of persons whom SOCA or the director-general must consult is unnecessary.
	Indeed, the fact that SOCA will be working with a whole host of bodies highlights why we have avoided going down this route. A list of consultees for SOCA could not hope to be exhaustive and in the case of general consultations, as in Amendment No. 15, would mean that SOCA would have to consult on matters where it perhaps had little interest. Indeed, both the amendments concede the point that the lists are not exhaustive as there is provision for SOCA or the director-general, as appropriate, to also consult,
	"such other persons or bodies"
	as they consider appropriate in addition to the specified list. We fear that in the long run any such list will prove increasingly inflexible.
	I should point out that given that SOCA will have a United Kingdom wide remit and will be involved in matters which are devolved, it is entirely appropriate for there to be express provision to consult Scottish Ministers, with every expectation that SOCA will do likewise for Northern Ireland, when it comes to issuing the annual plan.
	Finally, I cannot help but note that rather than limiting the Secretary of State's powers, Amendment No. 15 would add to the Secretary of State's powers to interfere in SOCA by empowering him ultimately to require SOCA to review its consultation arrangements.
	I hope that I have shown that in principle we are with the noble Lord as regards the need for and importance of broad consultation, but that these amendments are unnecessary. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw them.

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Annual plans]:
	[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 [General duty of Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers]:
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Strategic priorities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 not moved.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Performance targets]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I gave notice that I objected to Clause 10 standing part, since when the Minister has kindly indicated that she agrees with me on that matter. Therefore, when the Chairman puts the Question to the Committee, I propose to say "Not Content".

Clause 10 negatived.
	Clause 11 [Codes of practice]:

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 6, line 21, at end insert "and shall issue such codes in relation to the exercise by SOCA of police powers, customs powers and immigration powers"

Lord Dholakia: This is about codes of practice in relation to the exercise by SOCA of police powers. Police officers are bound by codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act governing many aspects of their powers. If it is not thought practical to make these codes binding in relation to SOCA, as we explained when discussing Clause 4, we believe that the Home Secretary should issue detailed codes as soon as possible in relation to the exercise of police powers, Customs powers and immigration powers by SOCA. Such codes are invaluable in safeguarding the rights of suspects. Observance of correct procedures also helps to prevent later arguments that evidence has been unfairly obtained. The issuing of such codes will therefore make SOCA more effective. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Concern has been expressed in this House and in another place as to the use that will be made of the powers of a constable, Customs officer and immigration officer by members of staff of SOCA. Once again, I can assure the Committee that these powers will not be designated lightly or irresponsibly. Indeed, a government amendment was passed in another place to ensure that staff will not be given any of these powers unless the director-general is sure that they are capable, suitable, and have had adequate training relevant to that power.
	While I understand the noble Lord's concerns to ensure that SOCA officers will exercise their powers in an appropriate manner—I, of course, commend him for that—we feel that the Bill already makes sufficient provision for this. Furthermore, by requiring the Home Secretary to issue codes of practice on the exercise of police powers, the amendment could cut across the PACE codes of practice which would already apply to SOCA officers designated with PACE powers.
	In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel a modicum of contentment and will feel able more easily to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Inspections]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 24A:
	Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) Before requesting an inspection that would fall to be carried out wholly or partly in Scotland, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I was considering the issue raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and was waiting for him to speak. However, my amendment seeks to cure his.
	I reassure the noble Duke that this amendment, which stands in my name, will do exactly what he wishes. The noble Duke makes a valid point and I am happy to accept his amendment in principle. The wording of his amendment is, however, not as simple as it might be and I trust that he will support the government amendment in lieu of his own. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Duke of Montrose: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
	Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before requesting an inspection under subsection (2) above—
	(a) if the inspection is to be carried out wholly in Scotland; or
	(b) in a case where the inspection is to be carried out partly in Scotland to the extent that it is carried out there."

The Duke of Montrose: As this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 24A, I thank the Minister for her redrafting of the content of the amendment. The Bill makes clear that there will be a great deal of consultation and co-ordination with Scottish Ministers, as the Minister was keen to emphasise. However, the matter referred to in the amendment was one area that had not been covered. As Scottish inspectors are likely to be involved as well as Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, it is important that the matter is covered. I am prepared to support the noble Baroness's amendment. I shall not move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
	Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Grants by Secretary of State]:
	[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Determinations relating to grants under section 18]:
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clauses 20 to 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Regulations as to equipment]:
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clauses 29 to 34 agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Disclosure of information to SOCA]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 21, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 and 35. Amendment No. 30 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 31. Amendment No. 31 seeks to ensure that information subject to legal privilege cannot be disclosed to SOCA. This has been raised because Clause 35 raises a rather sensitive issue within the devolution settlement. I am led to believe that the Serious Fraud Office in England currently has such powers, but I understand from the Scottish Law Society that those powers do not apply in Scotland at present so, without the amendments, the clause introduces a totally new measure in Scotland.
	As drafted, Clause 35 permits the disclosure of confidential information to SOCA. The person disclosing the information can do so with impunity. The Law Society of Scotland is concerned about the impact that that may have on the doctrine of legal professional privilege. The law is careful to protect the relationship between the solicitor and client by the doctrine of legal privilege, which has recently been reaffirmed by the House of Lords and by the Court of Appeal. To assist in the proper functioning of the rule of law, a client must be able to rely on the fact that he or she can communicate openly with his or her solicitor in the knowledge that such communication is privileged. To preserve that relationship, provision should be made to the effect that Clause 35 would not extend to the disclosure of information subject to legal privilege.
	In Clause 35, the Law Society of Scotland has endeavoured to incorporate the definition of legal privilege for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill. It leads me to believe that even though a later government amendment includes a definition of legal privilege, it would require to be defined in both parts. It is important to have a clear understanding in the Bill of the information that will fall within the definition of legal privilege. This definition reflects the definition of legal privilege given in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straight away to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that I have sympathy with the principles behind the amendments, but on this occasion it is not sufficient to persuade me to accept his amendments at this time.
	Information will be the lifeblood of SOCA. The new agency will, after all, be intelligence-driven in all its activities, which will be better targeted and more proportionate with the single aim of significantly reducing the harm caused by serious organised crime to the United Kingdom. The effect of the amendments would be to restrict significantly the flow of information to SOCA, in turn significantly damaging our ability to tackle and defeat serious organised crime.
	Legal professionals in particular are often party to information, be it information that is disclosed to them alone by their clients or those seeking advice from them, or information that would corroborate other information that SOCA might obtain. The amendments would deprive SOCA as well as others of that vital information resource, with the effect of damaging its ability to perform its purpose. Indeed, it may be argued that organised criminals could exploit a potential loophole created by the amendments by disclosing information to their advisers in the knowledge that the information would not then be passed on to SOCA.
	I suspect that what drives the amendments is a wish to ensure there is appropriate protection for a person's information. I understand that, and I fully sympathise with those intentions. However, we consider that the Bill already provides such protection. The power in Clause 35(1) to disclose information is permissive in nature. Information may only be disclosed for the purposes of the exercise by SOCA of any of its functions. Further, Clause 35(3) expressly makes clear that the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 still apply to any information disclosed to SOCA and, needless to say, so does the Human Rights Act 1998. Although the amendments are well intentioned, I hope that the noble Duke will agree that in light of what I have said the Bill strikes the right balance. I hope that those who have advised him will also be content with that.

The Duke of Montrose: I am rather fascinated by the reply given by the noble Baroness, in which she said that she was not able to agree to my amendments "at this time". I am rather wondering at which time she will be able to agree. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
	Clause 35 agreed to.
	Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 32:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES INVESTIGATED BY SOCA
	(1) The Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions—
	(a) may institute and conduct criminal proceedings in England and Wales that arise out of a criminal investigation by SOCA relating to a designated offence, and
	(b) must take over the conduct of criminal proceedings instituted by SOCA in England and Wales in respect of a designated offence.
	(2) The Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions must provide such advice as he thinks appropriate, to such persons as he thinks appropriate, in relation to—
	(a) a criminal investigation by SOCA relating to a designated offence, or
	(b) criminal proceedings instituted in England and Wales that arise out of such an investigation.
	(3) The Director of Public Prosecutions—
	(a) may institute and conduct criminal proceedings in England and Wales that arise out of a criminal investigation by SOCA relating to a non-designated offence, and
	(b) must take over the conduct of criminal proceedings instituted by SOCA in England and Wales in respect of such an offence.
	But paragraph (b) does not apply where the Director of the Serious Fraud Office has the conduct of the proceedings.
	(4) The Director of Public Prosecutions must provide such advice as he thinks appropriate, to such persons as he thinks appropriate, in relation to—
	(a) a criminal investigation by SOCA relating to a non-designated offence, or
	(b) criminal proceedings instituted in England and Wales that arise out of such an investigation.
	(5) Sections 23 and 23A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) (power to discontinue proceedings) apply (with any necessary modifications) to proceedings conducted by the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions in accordance with this section as they apply to proceedings conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	(6) In the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005—
	(a) section 37(1) (prosecutors), and
	(b) section 38(1) (conduct of prosecutions by appointed persons),
	have effect as if the reference to section 35 of that Act included a reference to this section.
	(7) For the purposes of this section and section (Directions as to reference of cases and proceedings to appropriate prosecutor)—
	(a) "criminal investigation" means any process—
	(i) for considering whether an offence has been committed,
	(ii) for discovering by whom an offence has been committed, or
	(iii) as a result of which an offence is alleged to have been committed;
	(b) an offence is a "designated offence" if criminal proceedings instituted by SOCA in respect of the offence fall (or, as the case may be, would fall) to be referred to the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions by virtue of directions under section (Directions as to reference of cases and proceedings to appropriate prosecutor)(1);
	(c) "non-designated offence" means an offence which is not a designated offence;
	(d) a reference to the institution of criminal proceedings is to be construed in accordance with section 15(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23); and
	(e) a reference to the institution of proceedings by SOCA includes a reference to their institution by the Director General of SOCA or a person authorised by him."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendments deal with the prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA. We want to ensure that the skills and experience that have been built up within both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office in prosecuting serious organised crime are available to SOCA.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill establishes the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office which will supersede CEPO. As that Bill stands, the functions of RCPO are confined to the conduct of criminal proceedings instituted by Revenue and Customs. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 32 extends those functions so that RCPO may also institute and conduct criminal proceedings that arise out of a criminal investigation by SOCA.
	The new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 33 provides for the issue of joint directions by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions. The purpose of those directions is to lay down criteria for determining which prosecutor will take responsibility for any given case initiated by SOCA. Amendments Nos. 34 and 58 make technical, consequential amendments. As I have indicated, the amendments will ensure that SOCA has access to the best possible legal advice during the course of a criminal investigation and that the most appropriate prosecutor can be assigned to take a case to court.
	I apologise for using more acronyms than I would normally be entitled to use, but for the purpose of speed, I thought that it would be faster than giving the full names on each occasion. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: I was slightly fascinated by the fact that following up the prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA we seem to be dealing exclusively with England and Wales. I want to check that the Government are happy that the situation is adequately taken care of for Scotland by the powers vested in the Lord Advocate as the one alone who can raise public prosecutions in Scotland. Perhaps his powers already cover everything included in this rather lengthy paragraph.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Duke can be assured that in dealing with the provisions we did take into account the difference between the two systems. We understand that everyone is content, particularly the Lord Advocate.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"DIRECTIONS AS TO REFERENCE OF CASES AND PROCEEDINGS TO APPROPRIATE PROSECUTOR
	(1) The Directors may give directions to SOCA—
	(a) for enabling SOCA to determine whether cases arising out of criminal investigations by SOCA are to be referred to the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, in order for him to consider whether to institute proceedings in accordance with section (Prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA)(1)(a) or (3)(a);
	(b) for enabling SOCA to determine whether criminal proceedings instituted by SOCA are to be referred to the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, in order for him to take over their conduct in accordance with section (Prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA)(1)(b) or (3)(b);
	(c) specifying, in relation to any cases or proceedings that are to be so referred to the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions or the Director of Public Prosecutions, the steps to be taken by SOCA in connection with referring them to him.
	(2) Directions under subsection (1) may provide for cases or proceedings to be referred to one or other of the Directors by reference to—
	(a) whether the cases or proceedings relate to an offence falling within a category of offences specified in the directions; or
	(b) whether any criteria so specified are satisfied with respect to the cases or proceedings; or
	(c) such other matters as the Directors think fit.
	(3) The Directors may from time to time revise any directions given under this section.
	(4) The Directors must publish in such manner as they think fit—
	(a) any directions given under this section, and
	(b) any revisions made to such directions;
	and they must give a copy of any such directions or revisions to SOCA.
	(5) A report to which this subsection applies must set out —
	(a) any directions given under this section, and
	(b) any revisions made to such directions,
	in the year to which the report relates.
	(6) Subsection (5) applies to—
	(a) a report under section 9 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (report to Attorney General by Director of Public Prosecutions), and
	(b) a report under paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (report to Attorney General by Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions).
	(7) Directions under this section may make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas.
	(8) If there is a failure to comply with directions under this section in relation to the reference of any matter to one of the Directors, neither—
	(a) the reference, nor
	(b) anything subsequently done in connection with the matter,
	is invalid by reason of anything in the directions or in section (Prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA).
	(9) In this section "the Directors" means the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, acting jointly.
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR OF REVENUE AND CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS AS TO PERSONS ARRESTED FOR DESIGNATED OFFENCE
	(1) Sections 37 to 37B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (duties of custody officers; guidance etc.) have effect, in relation to a person arrested following a criminal investigation by SOCA relating to a designated offence, as if references to the Director of Public Prosecutions were references to the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions.
	(2) In subsection (1) the reference to a designated offence is to be read in accordance with section (Prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA) (7)(b) of this Act."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 39 agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
	[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
	Clause 41 [Designation of SOCA staff as persons having powers of constable etc.]:
	[Amendments Nos. 37 to 45 not moved.]
	Clause 41 agreed to.
	Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
	Clause 44 [Person having powers of a constable]:
	[Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 not moved.]
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Person having customs powers]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 26, line 38, leave out "6" and insert "7"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This is a minor drafting amendment that ensures that Clause 46 catches up with the changes to the clause numbering in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
	Clause 49 [Assaults, obstruction or deception in connection with designations]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 28, line 28, leave out "12" and insert "9"

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 52, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54. The amendment probes the rationale for setting the maximum penalty at 12 months' imprisonment for offences under Clause 49 committed in Scotland. The clause creates the offences of assaulting, obstructing or impersonating designated members of SOCA staff and appears to replicate offence provisions in, inter alia, the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Police Reform Act 2002. It would appear from Clause 49(4), (5), (7) and (8) that the maximum sentence on conviction will vary throughout the UK. The Law Society of Scotland would like to determine the Government's rationale for that variation.
	The maximum sentence which could be imposed in Scotland in terms of the clause is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. The maximum penalty on conviction for the analogous offence under Section 41(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 is nine months' imprisonment. Nine months is also the maximum penalty of imprisonment in terms of similar provisions for assaulting or impeding police officers and other emergency workers under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, recently passed by the Scottish Parliament. It would therefore appear inconsistent to extend the greater protection to those persons acting in a designated capacity under the Bill than will be available to police officers more generally.
	If there is to be a regional variation, should the penalty that will apply in Scotland not be consistent with similar provisions that apply through other legislation in Scotland? I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am afraid that I cannot commend the amendments to the Committee. Sentencing is of course a devolved matter, but I am assured that the provisions as they stand reflect the wishes of our Scottish colleagues.
	In so far as the custodial penalties for England and Wales are concerned—namely, 51 weeks on summary conviction for assaulting, obstructing or deceiving a designated member of SOCA, or assaulting or obstructing a member of a joint investigation team under SOCA's leadership—the penalties reflect the new sentencing framework of custody plus contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That Act prospectively amended the sentence for the offences on which the offences in the Bill are based—those in Section 89 of the Police Act 1996 against constables, and Section 46 of the Police Reform Act 2002 against persons designated with police powers. The sentences in the 1996 and 2002 Acts will be 51 weeks for the equivalent offences in England and Wales.
	Although the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provisions are not yet in force, they will be by the time that SOCA comes into being, so it is eminently sensible to bring the penalties prospectively into line now. That is clearly comparable to the 12-month penalty in Scotland for the same offences as provided by the Bill.
	Presumably, through the amendment, the noble Duke is attempting to bring the penalty into line with the penalties for similar offences against constables and emergency workers in Scotland, as provided in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 respectively. However, given that SOCA is not a police force and that it will indeed have a UK-wide remit, we and our Scottish colleagues feel that in this case it is appropriate to be as consistent as possible in the penalties for the offences against SOCA staff on both sides of the border, while taking into account the fact that sentencing policy is a devolved matter.
	I hope that that explains what may at first blush have appeared an inconsistency. However, it is a consistency with which both we and our Scottish colleagues are content.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the noble Baroness for that fairly detailed explanation. It is rather difficult to follow all the ins and outs—it is a consistent inconsistency. In these circumstances, I would normally say that I would like to take the matter away, consider it and bring it back at a later date. However, that may not apply on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 49 agreed to.
	Clauses 50 to 53 agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 53:
	After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
	"APPLICATION OF DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION TO SOCA SECONDED STAFF
	(1) For the purposes of the provisions to which this subsection applies any constable or other person who has been seconded to SOCA to serve as a member of its staff shall be treated as being employed by SOCA as respects any act done by it in relation to that person.
	(2) Subsection (1) applies to—
	(a) Part 2 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65);
	(b) Part 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74);
	(c) Part II of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15));
	(d) Part 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50);
	(e) Part II of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/869 (N.I. 6)); and
	(f) the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/3162 (N.I. 21)), except Part VII.
	(3) For the purposes of the provisions to which this subsection applies—
	(a) any constable or other person who has been seconded to SOCA to serve as a member of its staff shall be treated as being employed by SOCA (and as not being employed by any other person); and
	(b) anything done by such a person in the performance, or purported performance, of his functions as such a person shall be treated as done in the course of that employment.
	(4) Subsection (3) applies to—
	(a) section 41 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65);
	(b) section 32 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74);
	(c) Article 42 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15));
	(d) section 58 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50);
	(e) Article 32 of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/869 (N.I. 6)); and
	(f) Article 36 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/3162 (N.I. 21))."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that Members of the Committee will find that the amendments are straightforward in dealing with discrimination legislation as applied to persons seconded to SOCA. Before I explain them, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that the matter was brought to our attention by colleagues in the Police Federation, to whom we are grateful.
	The purposes of the amendments are twofold. First, they bring into one place, under a single new clause, the discrimination legislation to provide that SOCA is liable for any act done by it in relation to persons seconded to the agency, as well as anything done by such persons in the performance or purported performance of their functions. Secondly, the amendments expressly provide that SOCA is liable for any discriminatory acts committed by any of its secondees, be they constables or other persons. I commend the amendment to the Committee and beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Assaults or obstruction in connection with joint investigation teams]:
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clause 55 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clause 56 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to SOCA]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 62:
	Page 149, leave out lines 32 to 38 and insert—
	"In section 17 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (police), in subsection (7)—"
	Page 151, leave out lines 6 to 11.
	Page 151, leave out lines 26 to 32 and insert—
	"In Article 85 (other police bodies), for paragraph (6) substitute—"
	Page 152, leave out lines 25 to 32 and insert—
	"47 In section 3(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (functions of Director of Public Prosecutions), in the definition of "police force", omit ", the National Crime Squad"."
	Page 155, leave out lines 1 to 5.
	Page 155, leave out lines 17 to 21.
	Page 160, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 161 and insert—
	"In Article 72B (other police bodies), for paragraph (6) substitute—"
	Page 162, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert—
	"In Article 94A (other police bodies), for paragraph (6) substitute—"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: moved Amendment No. 62A:
	Before Clause 57, insert the following new clause—
	"INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
	Sections 17 (exclusion of matters from legal proceedings) and 18 (exceptions to section 17) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) are repealed."

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I have pursued the subject for 10 years or more, and this is clearly my last chance on it in this Parliament. Ten years ago, I discovered to my surprise—it is now well known—that we are the only country in the world apart from Ireland that does not admit intercept material in criminal proceedings. That is still the case today. That simple fact seems to require a good explanation.
	Of course, there are no doubt differences between different legal systems, but those differences are very small—certainly in the common-law jurisdictions—compared to what they have in common. In any event, those differences do not begin to explain why they all, with one accord, admit such intercept material in criminal proceedings and we alone do not. The only explanation that I can think of is that we have consistently exaggerated the risks of doing so and have consistently underestimated the benefits.
	I tried to summarise the arguments on this point during my Second Reading speech and none of those need repeating. But I would like to refer to the Minister's reply on that occasion. She said that intercept material had, indeed, been of great utility and she gave us an example—the fact that during 2003 some 26 tonnes of illicit drugs had been seized. She was obviously right about that, but she said that near the end of a long day and she missed the whole point. No one has ever doubted that intercept material is of huge value as an intelligence tool for identifying criminals and stopping them, if we can, in their tracks.
	However, the question is whether that intercept material could also be used for convicting criminals. Unless it could be shown that those two objectives were in some way inconsistent with each other, the arguments in favour of admitting the evidence seem to be very strong.
	This subject was considered by a high-powered Home Office committee last summer and was summarised in a Written Statement just before the proceedings on the Terrorism Bill. I asked to see a copy of that report and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for letting me see one this morning. My reading of it is that the benefits of admitting this evidence are not in serious doubt. The doubt relates to the risks and, in particular, the risk of compromising sophisticated techniques.
	Some of the agencies are strongly in favour of this evidence being admitted; some, who are more directly connected with the sophisticated techniques, are against it. I believe that the risks can be controlled by the use of a public interest immunity certificate and if the judge came to the view at the hearing that took place in the ordinary way that the evidence should be admitted, and if it would be seriously embarrassing to the Government, the prosecution could always be dropped, as is the case at the moment.
	Why have the Government come to the provisional view—or, rather, the final view, for the moment—that such evidence should not be admitted? It was not as a result of the report. The report came to no view one way or the other. It simply left it to Ministers. Why? I have nothing to go on except for the Home Office letter of 22 May, which refers to two matters. The first relates to maintaining the vital co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the communications service providers. It is all a little jargon-like as it is between the people who are using the intelligence and the people who are doing the work—British Telecom, or whoever. Everyone agrees that that co-operation is vital. Without the co-operation of the service providers, the interception would not be possible.
	Lastly, there is the difficult sentence, which states:
	"A particular problem presented by the current step change in communications technology was that there was no way of reliably testing the legal model devised to deliver evidential intercept which was firmly grounded in the current technology".
	I read that sentence several times and I still do not understand it. I do not expect the Minister to explain it, but, perhaps at some time, can she explain to me exactly what that sentence means? It seems to say that there is no way of testing now how successful we would be if we adopted the amendment. If that is what it is saying, my advice to the Government would be to try the amendment and see. If other countries are anything to go by, she will find that the amendment is a great deal more successful than she imagines. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: So far, in this Committee, we have been asked to accept a large number of matters—many of which are controversial. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has, with all of his expertise, moved an amendment and several suggestions which should not be ignored. I understand that the Government, having declared that there should be a general election soon, have asked us to swallow a great deal that we would not normally accept, but here we must persuade the Government to accept the noble and learned Lord's proposal.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 91, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. My amendment is not quite as all-encompassing as that moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, but I seek that in,
	"any proceedings in a Crown Court, a court-martial, the High Court or the High Court of the Justiciary",
	to permit the use of intercepted communications which are,
	"relevant to the proof of . . . any threat of domestic or international terrorism, . . . sabotage, or actual or potential attack . . . of a foreign power".
	That would also apply in cases of,
	"murder, conspiracy to murder, attempted murder or manslaughter",
	and any case involving the,
	"import or export of controlled drugs".
	In my experience, it is in those areas that surveillance evidence is obtained.
	It is very much in the public interest that people who are guilty of serious crime should be convicted. It is entirely illogical not to use evidence which is primary evidence to that end. For example, telephone intercept evidence cannot be used unless it has been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction. On the other hand, if a person making a telephone call tapes it himself, then that tape recording can be used in evidence in a criminal trial. If a bug is planted in his house, anything that is said is admissible in a criminal trial, including his end of a telephone conversation. So why are the Government reluctant to introduce intercept evidence in the ordinary criminal trial?
	One understands the sensitivity of the security or other services about disclosure of how such information may be obtained. It is necessary not to expose the identity of an informant or to disclose the technology by which that evidence has come into the hands of the prosecuting authorities. But at the moment there are three important safeguards.
	First, the identity of a party to a conversation can, with modern technology, be established to the requisite level of proof by acoustic analysis and voice prints, so it is not necessary to have an informant state who was speaking in a particular conversation. Secondly, the means of obtaining that evidence need not be disclosed if it is contrary to the public interest or national security. Frequently, in drugs trials evidence obtained by surveillance from observation posts is put before the court, but the location of the observation post and the particular way in which the evidence was obtained is not disclosed.
	However, the third safeguard is that the prosecution need not use that evidence at all if it is in danger of disclosing the means by which it was obtained. If that is the case, then the prosecution is in no worse a position than when no such telephone intercept evidence can be used in any circumstances—which is the current situation.
	The position in America is very interesting. There, surveillance evidence and telephone intercepts have been used for years. Prosecutions based on national security surveillance go forward without difficulty. The security services in the United States are able, under special legislation, to make available to the court ex parte and in camera the justification for the surveillance so that the defendant obtains neither the justification nor a disclosure of the sources and technologies from which that evidence has been obtained.
	As recently as 2004, after 9/11 in the case of The United States v Hammoud, the prosecution was upheld for providing to Hezbollah, a foreign terrorist organisation, material support which had been obtained through electronic surveillance by the United States and Canadian authorities. It was found in this very recent case not to be necessary to produce classified information to permit cross-examination of the government expert under the Classified Information Procedures Act—that is, Chapter 18 of the United States Code.
	I shall not weary the Committee with all the details but, when one looks at that code and at the procedures employed, it is interesting to note that one procedure that can be adopted is that, on application by the Attorney-General in the United States, the court may order the substitution for such classified information of a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would prove or, alternatively, the substitution for such classified information of a summary of that classified information without revealing sources or techniques or anything of that nature. The court will grant the motion if it finds that the statement or the summary will provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defence as would the disclosure of the classified information itself.
	Those hearings are held in camera—that is, with the public and press excluded—and may be ex parte—that is, without the defendant being represented. The United States government prosecution may submit to the court an affidavit of the Attorney-General certifying that disclosure of the classified information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States, explaining the basis of that opinion, and the court will examine that affidavit in camera and ex parte.
	So, the United States, where terrorism has struck deeply and where there is a great fear of the kind of things that may be motivating the security services in this country, has techniques with which the court can permit evidence obtained through telephone intercepts and so on to go before the court. As I said earlier, it is in the public interest that people who are guilty of an offence should be found guilty, and it is not in the public interest that, through some illogical rule, guilty people should get away with it. For those reasons, I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.

Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has spoken with his usual perspicacity on this issue. In this and related matters we have always walked arm in arm with him and today is no exception.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I commend the noble Lord for his brevity. I wish that I could respond similarly briefly by saying that we have always departed and therefore, for the reasons I have given on nine occasions, I do not wish to say more. I feel that that might disappoint the noble and learned Lord a little, although, if I had assent from around the rest of the Committee, I would be tempted to sit down.
	The amendment concerns well travelled ground and it is an important issue. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, really says is that, in accepting that the nature of the information that we have is valuable and the intelligence use of it important, we should take the next step, and the next step is to use that intercept material to discharge the evidential burden that is placed in court on the prosecution to establish guilt. That is the next step which the noble and learned Lord says it is proper to take because others in other jurisdictions have done so.
	In considering that next step, it is important to bear in mind the risks of so doing and to consider whether those risks outweigh the undoubted benefit that may flow from the use of intercept material in the court setting. Therefore, the purpose of the noble and learned Lord's amendment would appear to be to remove the statutory bar on intercept evidence to allow it to be used for certain serious crimes.
	I do not suggest that the noble and learned Lord invites us to use this measure without moderation or in anything other than the most acute and appropriate case. But we have already made it clear that the "wins" in using intercept as evidence would be modest and short term and the potential "losses" could be catastrophic to our ability to act effectively against organised crime and terrorism.
	The amendment does not take into account the unique nature of the relationship between our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, our judicial system, which combines an adversarial approach with human rights obligations—as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and embodied in our Human Rights Act 1998; I know that some people do not have the affection and regard for the Human Rights Act that this Government have but we say that it is an important part of our framework—or the changes in technology which are about to alter fundamentally the entire communications arena.
	The amendment provides no protections whatever to the capabilities which must be protected if we are to maintain our effectiveness in this area. As Sir Stephen Lander said in February:
	"For my part, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that due to the changing nature of telephone technology and the importance, during a period of change, of not sensitising terrorists and serious criminals to particular capabilities that will be important for the future, there are indeed good reasons not to remove the bar on the use of intercept in our courts".
	We say that that is a powerful reason to exercise the discretion that we have on how these types of evidence should be used. It is important that we value and understand the impressive results that have been obtained through the use of intercept material and that we understand the protection that it would need in order to preserve it for future actions.
	The question that the review considered was very much the one raised by the noble and learned Lord—that is, are we right in saying that the bar should stay where it is? The review into the use of intercept as evidence concluded that, although evidential use would result in an increase in prosecutions, such an increase would be modest and limited to those lower down the criminal hierarchy. That is because top criminal targets are particularly adept at ensuring that their communications are not compromised. In addition, there would be a number of serious risks that would jeopardise the close intelligence law enforcement relationship that has stood us in such good stead.
	This is not a rushed judgment or a snap decision. The review commissioned by this Government has been the most thorough and extensive ever mounted, drawing on the expertise in all relevant areas of law and law enforcement, including prosecution and intelligence. The subject has been kept under almost continual review during the past 10 years. We shall continue to keep it under review. If we are satisfied that our response to terrorism and serious crime needs new powers, we shall work to ensure that we obtain new powers.
	I am confident that if the House continues to be composed of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and a number of others who have voiced this view, we shall return to this issue again and again. I assure noble Lords that we shall continue to keep an open mind and look at the issue in a way that makes sense. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am afraid that the answer is as expected. The noble Baroness accepts that there is a benefit, as the review established. She says that that benefit is only short term, but she does not explain why it is only short term. She says that there are huge risks involved, but she does not explain what they are. She says that the Government have always been very keen on human rights, but this issue has nothing whatever to do with human rights. Things being as they are, and on the understanding that it will be returned again and again to the House—I undertake to bring it back again and again with the support of my former pupil sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 57 agreed to.
	Clause 58 [Offences to which this Chapter applies]:

Baroness Whitaker: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 32, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1996 as amended by Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) or any offence at common law of bribery or corruption;"

Baroness Whitaker: I can deal briefly with Amendment No. 63. Its purpose is simply to add to the list of those serious offences that the DPP may investigate those of corruption and bribery, including by UK nationals overseas. We have too long underestimated the seriousness of corruption offences. They do not figure significantly in police or Serious Fraud Office targets and the SFO seems too stretched to deal with them fully. My noble friend herself said in her closing speech at Second Reading, at col. 1197, that the SFO will receive specialist support from SOCA in respect of international corruption. These offences belong up there in the list with money laundering, evasion of duty and false accounting.
	The OECD has just reported on the UK's compliance with the Anti-Bribery Convention, specifically recommending that more resource should be put to investigating bribery and corruption and commenting on the astonishing dearth of prosecutions. As the Commission for Africa, set up by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, indicates, millions of ordinary people in the poorest part of the world suffer because of corruption by rich country companies, including most certainly some based in the UK. I think that adding this offence to the list of those which can be investigated by the DPP in this Bill is the least we can do. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I support this amendment. The noble Baroness has a very good record in identifying issues of serious concern and this is one. If the Government genuinely believe in an ethical policy, I see no problem why this amendment cannot be incorporated in the Bill.
	I was looking carefully at the purpose of Part 2 of the Bill which deals with investigations, prosecutions, proceedings and proceeds of crime. Clause 58 deals with offences as they apply to this chapter. I have looked at the Explanatory Notes of the Home Office in relation to these offences and that document says:
	"The clauses restrict disclosure notices and the power to enter and seize documents . . . to investigations into offences involving: drug trafficking, money laundering, directing terrorism, people trafficking, arms trafficking, counterfeiting, intellectual property theft, pimps and brothels, blackmail, terrorist funding and certain tax and excise fraud offences".
	If those are the offences, what is wrong with incorporating bribery and corruption? They fit in within the overall circus.
	Clause 58(2) and (3) confer on the Home Secretary and the Scottish Ministers the power to amend the list of offences by order through the affirmative resolution procedure. If that is the case, why do we not amend it at this stage rather than wait for the Home Secretary to make up his mind some time in the future? I support the amendment.

Lord Renton: It seems to me to be abundantly clear that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is essential. Omitting the reference in the amendment to,
	"any offence at common law of bribery or corruption",
	would be very serious. The amendment as a whole is worth consideration by the Government. I really hope that when the Bill reaches its final stages something of this kind will be inserted.

Lord Joffe: The OECD evaluation of the implementation by the United Kingdom of the Convention on Combating Bribery signed in 1999 found that not a single prosecution had been brought against any company or person for bribery of a public official. If the Government are serious about the implementation of the convention, it must be desirable that the investigating authority has power to investigate offences covered by the legislation. I support the amendment.

Lord Desai: I too support the amendment. My noble friend has already mentioned the Commission for Africa report which the Government are committed to implementing. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has maintained that in the OECD terms we rank very low indeed in our desire to pursue bribery and corruption cases. I am sure that the noble Baroness will say that she cannot accept the amendment now—I can see that coming—but as she said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I would be grateful if she can assure the Committee that the Government will keep this matter under review and return to it as soon as possible.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is rare indeed for one of my noble friends to have such trenchant support from all around the House: the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia, Lord Renton and Lord Joffe, and my own dear noble friend Lord Desai. My noble friend has a full House to support her. She also has, in principle, my support. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this very important point. I share her view that the disclosure notice powers seem to offer real potential for gathering evidence in serious bribery and corruption investigations. That has not previously arisen during our consultations on these provisions or during the passage of the Bill.
	We have not yet had a chance to consider this in detail or to discuss it with the law enforcement agencies. I hope I give her and other noble Lords a modicum of pleasure by saying that we shall do that and we shall consider bringing forward an order under Clause 58 to add to these offences. That is something that I know my noble friend will enjoy hearing.

Baroness Whitaker: My noble friend has really said it all. I should like to thank noble Lords all around the Chamber who have supported the amendment. I have to say that I am not actually surprised, because I think that it is an extremely good amendment. I am most grateful to my noble friend.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It may help if I say a little more at this stage about Clause 58 since I am—if I may put it colloquially—on a roll in trying to give satisfaction. We are aware of concerns that the compulsory and investigatory powers should be used only for the most serious offences. That matter has been raised. Most of the offences in Clause 58, about which we are now speaking, are inherently serious in nature. However, I recognise that the tax fraud offences in subsection (1)(d) and the offences under Section 17 of the Theft Act referred to in subsection (1)(e) may not necessarily be serious.
	To address the concerns we will table amendments for Report tomorrow to set a de minimis threshold of £5,000 for those offences. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will agree, in his normal telegraphic style, not to move his amendments to Chapter 1 of Part 2.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention on Clause 58. She will not be surprised to hear that, for our part, we believe that this is a very sensible conclusion to a number of issues that we raised in another place. In those circumstances, we are prepared not to move the amendments that are relevant to those issues.

Baroness Whitaker: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 58 agreed to.
	Clause 59 [Disclosure notices]:
	[Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 not moved.]
	Clause 59 agreed to.
	Clause 60 [Production of documents]:
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
	Clause 60 agreed to.
	Clause 61 [Restrictions on requiring information etc.]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 67A:
	Page 35, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (6)(b), "legal privilege" has the meaning given by section 412 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Again, I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for tabling his amendment to Clause 67, which would define the expression "legal privilege" regarding material that was not required to be disclosed under a disclosure notice.
	The Government accept that the Bill would benefit from such a definition, but we would prefer to adopt the existing definition used in Section 412 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 rather than the one suggested by the noble Duke. Accordingly, I would invite the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, to withdraw his amendment and to support the government amendment to Clause 61 standing in my name.
	I turn to Amendment No. 69, to Clause 66. I hope to persuade the noble Duke that this amendment also is unnecessary. In Scotland, the service of documents is regulated by the provisions of the Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules) 1996, as amended. It makes general provision for the service of any document on a person under any enactment. Accordingly, we do not need to make specific provision in the Bill; hence the inclusion of subsection (5) in Clause 66.
	In the light of those comments, I would invite the noble Duke not to move his amendments. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, as my two amendments are grouped with the government amendment, I shall speak to them now. I am most grateful to the Minister for bringing forward her amendment on the definition of legal privilege. I was interested to see that the wording that has found favour is that which was proposed in my earlier amendment on legal privilege. So we seem to be in agreement on that.
	My Amendment No. 69 is a probing amendment and, in some ways, the noble Baroness has given us an explanation. It probed why the terms of Clause 66 would not apply to Scotland, and it would have provided clarification on how a disclosure notice would be served in Scotland if the terms did not extend there. I think that the Minister has made that much clearer, so I am most grateful to her.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 62 agreed to.
	Clause 63 [Power to enter and seize documents]:
	[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
	Clause 63 agreed to.
	Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
	Clause 66 [Manner in which disclosure notice may be given]:
	[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
	Clause 66 agreed to.
	Clause 67 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
	[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
	Clause 67 agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Assistance by offender: immunity from prosecution]:
	[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
	Clause 68 agreed to.
	Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
	Clause 71 [Assistance by defendant: review of sentence]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 41, line 41, leave out "agrees" and insert "offers"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 74 provides that hearings to vary a sentence following an agreement to co-operate can be held in camera or without publicity where the court considers it necessary to protect any person from harm and it is in the interests of justice. Occasionally, knowledge that a specific defendant's sentence is being reviewed would point to his co-operation with the authorities and put him at risk. The amendment makes it clear that the courts have a power to limit those who know about the hearing. We thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for highlighting that issue for us. The remaining amendments in the group are technical rather than substantive in their nature. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 42, line 44, leave out subsection (15) and insert—
	"(15) Subsections (3) to (9) of section 70 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section and any reference in those subsections to subsection (2) of that section must be construed as a reference to subsection (6) of this section."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 74:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—
	"PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 71: EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC
	(1) This section applies to—
	(a) any proceedings relating to a reference made under section 71(3), and
	(b) any other proceedings arising in consequence of such proceedings.
	(2) The court in which the proceedings will be or are being heard may make such order as it thinks appropriate—
	(a) to exclude from the proceedings any person who does not fall within subsection (4);
	(b) to give such directions as it thinks appropriate prohibiting the publication of any matter relating to the proceedings (including the fact that the reference has been made).
	(3) An order under subsection (2) may be made only to the extent that the court thinks—
	(a) that it is necessary to do so to protect the safety of any person, and
	(b) that it is in the interests of justice.
	(4) The following persons fall within this subsection—
	(a) a member or officer of the court;
	(b) a party to the proceedings;
	(c) counsel or a solicitor for a party to the proceedings;
	(d) a person otherwise directly concerned with the proceedings.
	(5) This section does not affect any other power which the court has by virtue of any rule of law or other enactment—
	(a) to exclude any person from proceedings, or
	(b) to restrict the publication of any matter relating to proceedings."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 72 agreed to.
	Clause 73 [Financial reporting orders: making in Scotland]:
	[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
	Clause 73 agreed to.
	Clause 74 agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Financial reporting orders: effect]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 45, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) subsequent periods of specified lengths, each period beginning immediately after the end of the previous one."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendment would introduce greater flexibility in the frequency of reporting by persons subject to a financial reporting order. That will enable the courts to vary the frequency with which an offender must report on the particulars of his financial affairs, to take account of changing circumstances which might affect the risk of re-offending. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
	Clause 78 [Protection of persons involved in investigations or proceedings]:
	[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 78:
	Page 47, line 11, at end insert—
	"(2A) If a protection provider varies or cancels any arrangement made by him under subsection (2), he must advise the protected person of that decision as soon as is reasonably practicable."

The Duke of Montrose: The amendment is intended to ensure that there is adequate communication between the protection provider and the protected person when the decision to vary or cancel arrangements is taken. The reason for that is that it is essential that the protected person is advised as soon as possible after a decision has been taken to vary or cancel protection arrangements. The Bill appears to make no provision for that. The amendment is intended to address that issue. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will give attention to this. It is not the most important amendment, but it is very necessary and I hope that we do not just dismiss it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we have given careful attention to the amendment; we have not just dismissed it.
	I have what I hope will be a helpful explanation for the noble Duke. Under current practice within police forces, an agreement to grant protection is recorded by means of a protocol between the protection provider and the protected person. Any amendment to that agreement would be recorded on the same document. It is also standard practice, in accordance with ACPO guidelines, to provide a protected person with 21 days' notice of changes to protection arrangements. Such arrangements would rarely be cancelled where a protected person has received an identity change. In such cases, an assessment would be made to decide whether the new identity should continue. I hope that that is a full explanation to the noble Duke of why the provisions are set out as they are.

The Duke of Montrose: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. Although it is reassuring to know that the arrangements are protected by means of a protocol, does the 21 days' notice apply prior to the changes, or does it mean that the recipient will have a notice 21 days after the changes?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I understand it, standard practice is to provide a protected person with 21 days' notice of changes to protection arrangements. That obviously makes good sense because one can then accommodate oneself to the proposed changes. As I said, arrangements would rarely be cancelled where a protected person has received an identity change, so those matters are sensitively dealt with.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister. I presume from that that it is a minimum of 21 days' prior notice and, in the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
	Clause 78 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Persons specified for the purposes of section 78]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 174, line 25, at end insert—
	" A person who is or has been an officer of the court, including—
	(a) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a barrister or solicitor; or
	(b) in Scotland, an advocate or solicitor.

The Duke of Montrose: This amendment again addresses an issue that has been raised with me by the Law Society of Scotland. It extends the list of people entitled to protection under Clause 78 by referring to officers of the court, including barristers, advocates and solicitors. Schedule 5 sets out a long list of people who are involved in the investigation or conduct of proceedings relating to serious crime who will be entitled to protection under the Bill. No reference is currently made to solicitors, advocates and barristers. To ensure that the protection offered by Clause 78 is comprehensive, the Law Society of Scotland suggests extending the list to include officers of the court. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I recognise that the safety of court staff, such as barristers and solicitors, may be threatened by their involvement in the prosecution of a case. They are already included among those eligible for protection. Paragraphs 8 to 12 of Schedule 5 cover prosecutors and their staff. I therefore consider that any further addition to Schedule 5 is unnecessary. In the light of that explanation, I invite the noble Duke to withdraw the amendment.
	Defence lawyers and their staff do not face the same risks as the prosecution in bringing a case to trial, although we are aware of a small number of cases where a defence lawyer has been threatened by a disgruntled client because of the impending failure of his trial. Where there is a serious threat to his safety, a defence lawyer should be eligible for some form of protection outside these provisions.
	May I say a word or two to clarify the previous group of amendments? The only time when we would be unable to consult and give 21 days' notice is if the person disappeared. Of course, we will make every effort to find them to ensure that they have the appropriate safeguards. I share the noble Duke's concern about the importance of effective communication between the protection provider and the protected person and of ensuring that the guidance accompanying the legislation makes clear that the 21 days' notice should be maintained. I thought that it was important to clarify that in case someone asked, "What if they disappear?".

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the noble Baroness for responding so fully on the issues and, in the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	Clause 79 agreed to.
	Clause 80 [Transfer of responsibility to other protection provider]:
	[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
	Clause 81 [Duty to assist protection providers]:
	[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
	Clause 81 agreed to.
	Clause 82 agreed to.
	Clause 83 [Defences to liability under section 82]:
	[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
	Clause 83 agreed to.
	Clause 84 agreed to.
	Clause 85 [Defences to liability under section 84]:
	[Amendments Nos. 87 to 90 not moved.]
	Clause 85 agreed to.
	Clauses 86 to 105 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
	Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to section 105]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 178, line 46, leave out "267(8B)" and insert "266(8B)"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: These are minor drafting amendments. New Section 282B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 inserted by Paragraph 20 of Schedule 6 erroneously refers to Section 267(8B) of POCA, rather than Section 266(8B) inserted by Paragraph 15 of Schedule 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 106 [Powers of arrest]:

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 71, leave out line 35.

Lord Dholakia: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 93 to 100, 102 and 107. Although we do not object in principle to the simplification of the criteria for arrest, we are concerned that the clause grants too much discretion to individual officers and will lead to many unnecessary arrests.
	We are concerned that the language of being "about to" commit an offence has been obtained in paragraphs (a) and (c) of new Section 24(1). Preventive detention otherwise than for the purpose of initiating a criminal prosecution is not permitted by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The police and others have powers under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to use reasonable force in the prevention of crime. In addition, in many cases a person about to commit an offence will be committing the offence of criminal attempt under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and therefore can be arrested under paragraphs (b) or (d) of new Section 24(1).
	We are concerned about a general power of arrest under paragraphs (e) and (f) of new Section 24(5). Those conditions are drafted very broadly; it will be very easy for an officer to justify an arrest under one or both of them. Since officers must often make rapid decisions about whether to arrest, it will be natural, particularly for the relatively inexperienced, to err on the side of caution. That will lead to further overcrowding of custody suites and an increased use of police time and resources in dealing with people arrested for minor offences.
	In addition, we are concerned that there is considerable scope for abuse of those subsections, and that they may be applied arbitrarily or in a discriminatory fashion against certain sections of the community. Article 5 of the convention does not permit arbitrary procedures for arrest.
	Where none of paragraphs (a) to (d) of new Section 24(5) applies, we believe that arrest and detention is not justified for minor offences, since the incentive for a suspect to abscond is small and the ultimate sanction that a court can impose is not severe. A person should spend time in police custody in relation to an offence for which he would not be imprisoned on conviction only where it was absolutely necessary. Paragraphs (e) and (f) should apply only to offences that are currently arrestable and should certainly not apply to offences that are not punishable by imprisonment.
	I shall now speak to Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 96, 98 and 99. Since preventive detention otherwise than for the purpose of initiating a criminal prosecution is not permitted under Article 5 of the European convention, arrest should not be available where someone is "about to" commit an offence but their actions do not constitute a criminal attempt or another offence. Where their actions constitute a criminal attempt or another offence, arrest would be available under paragraphs (b) and (d) of Clause 106(1). In other circumstances, the police and others have power to use reasonable force for the prevention of crime under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
	We believe that paragraphs (c) and (f) are very broadly drafted and that arrest could be justified under any one of them in most cases. In the case of relatively minor non-violent offences, arrest without warrant is not appropriate unless one of paragraphs (a) to (d) applies. We therefore propose to exclude non-violent offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than two years' imprisonment from the operation of paragraphs (e) and (f). I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand why the noble Lord makes those suggestions. I also understand the sensitivity that he expresses about how the provisions may affect differing communities in our country.
	However, in essence, the amendments that he urges upon the House seek either to retain or introduce a watered-down version of the existing test of seriousness. The latter of the two simply applies a lower threshold of seriousness to the individual elements of the test of necessity. The amendments go against the principles of simplifying arrest powers and ensuring that the police have sufficient preventive and enforcement powers to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. We must maintain the existing ability of police officers to arrest and intervene when an offence is about to be committed and to rationalise the powers of arrest to ensure that the police have access to effective and proportionate powers to tackle crime when it occurs.
	Noble Lords will know that we intend to issue a new PACE code of practice on arrest to coincide with the provisions coming into force. It will focus on the reasons that constitute necessity, an issue about which, I know, the noble Lord is anxious. The code will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses, so there will be an opportunity for debate and consideration of those issues. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I am grateful for the concession that the Minister has offered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]

Lord Geddes: I must advise the Committee that Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 have been incorrectly marshalled and I shall therefore call Amendment No. 97 before Amendment No. 96. I must further advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 96 or 98 due to pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 98 to 100 not moved.]
	Clause 106 agreed to.
	Clause 107 agreed to.
	Schedule 7 [Powers of Arrest: Supplementary]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Page 179, line 38, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Unlawful Drilling Act 1819 (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4 c. 1)
	In section 2 of the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819 (power to disperse unlawful meeting), omit ", or for any other person acting in their aid or assistance,".
	:TITLE3:Vagrancy Act 1824 (c. 83)
	Section 6 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (power to apprehend) shall cease to have effect.
	:TITLE3:Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c. 55)
	Section 17 of the Railway Regulation Act 1842 (punishment of persons guilty of misconduct) shall cease to have effect.
	:TITLE3:Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 16)
	In section 156 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (transient offenders), omit ", and all persons called by him to his assistance,".
	:TITLE3:Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 20)
	(1) The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 is amended as follows.
	(2) Section 104 (detention of offenders) shall cease to have effect.
	(3) Section 154 (transient offenders) shall cease to have effect.
	:TITLE3:Licensing Act 1872 (c. 94)
	In section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (penalty on persons found drunk), omit "may be apprehended, and"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: These amendments to Schedules 7 and 18 make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in Clause 106. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 179, line 41, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"London County Council (General Powers) Act 1894 (c. ccxii)
	In section 7 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1894 (arrest for breach of byelaws), omit "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or person authorised".

London County Council (General Powers) Act 1900 (c. cclxviii)

In section 27 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1900 (arrest for breach of byelaws), omit "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer".

Licensing Act 1902 (c. 28)

(1) The Licensing Act 1902 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1 (apprehension of persons found drunk), omit "apprehended and".
	(3) In section 2 (being drunk in charge of a child), in subsection (1), omit "may be apprehended, and"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 106:
	Page 180, line 11, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)
	In section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (drunkenness in a public place), in subsection (1), omit "may be arrested without warrant by any person and".

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order   Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 (c. xxix)

In Article 19 (power of detention) of the Order set out in the Schedule to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967, omit "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer"."
	Page 182, line 13, at end insert—

"Transport and Works Act 1992 (c. 42)

In section 30 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (powers of arrest and entry), omit subsections (1) and (3)."
	Page 183, line 33, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "London County Council(General Powers) Act 1900(c. cclxviii) Section 27 (arrest for breach of byelaws). 
			 Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment ProvisionalOrder Confirmation (GreaterLondon Parks and OpenSpaces) Act 1967 (c. xxix) Article 19 (power of detention) of the Order set out in the Schedule." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 108:
	Page 189, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
	"(iiib) section 27 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (which relates to offences involving drink or drugs);","
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 108 agreed to.

Lord Geddes: Before calling Amendment No. 109, I must advise the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 due to pre-emption.

Clause 109 [Search warrants: premises]:
	[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 110:
	Page 74, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) Where any sets of premises are specified in the application the justice of the peace must be satisfied of the matters in subsection (1) above in relation to each set of premises so specified."

Lord Dholakia: This amendment relates to search warrants. Powers of police search of premises and seizure of evidence engage the right to privacy. In its current form, Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of these powers through a regime of prior judicial scrutiny. We fear that, if enacted, the clauses will undermine the safeguards in that regime, giving rise to opportunities for unlawful speculative searches, harassment and unnecessary searches that are potentially dangerous and a waste of police time.
	We believe that the types of warrants created in Clauses 109 and 110 would be genuinely appropriate only where, for a valid operational reason, the police could not return to court for each separate warrant; for example, where they would need to enter premises at very short notice to conserve evidence.
	In many of those circumstances, measures could be adopted that would not remove judicial oversight. For example, provision could be made for emergency application by telephone—on a par with emergency applications for interim injunctions made by telephone to a judge. We recommend that, if that is not deemed to be practicable, further safeguards be inserted into the clauses. For example, the court should be satisfied that, for a valid operational reason, it is not reasonably practicable for individual warrant applications to be made in the normal way regarding different premises and different entries to the same premises.
	The amendments are designed to retain a higher level of prior judicial scrutiny of applications for search warrants for multiple premises. We believe that there should be a valid operational reason why the police cannot apply for warrants singly in the usual way. The insertion of the safeguards would, we believe, help to prevent opportunities for speculative searches and harassment of suspects. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Can I clarify that the noble Lord has, in effect, spoken to Amendments Nos. 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 together?

Lord Dholakia: Amendment No. 114 is in the next group.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord referred to multiple searches, and that falls into the next group.
	It is essential that application for and use of search warrants is, as the noble Lord rightly said, subject to independent scrutiny and oversight. We have maintained the essential role of the judiciary in the application for and issue of warrants. Importantly, when warrants are returned to court, they are duly endorsed to indicate the activities in relation to which the warrants have been used.
	For all premises warrants, prior written authority from a senior officer of at least the rank of inspector who is not involved in the investigation will be required in addition to scrutiny of the application by the justice of the peace, before any additional premises may be entered and searched. We believe that we have enhanced the investigative process, while ensuring that the new powers are proportionately balanced against the rights and protections of the individual. I invite the noble Lord not to press the amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 not moved.]
	Clause 109 agreed to.
	Clause 110 [Search warrants: other amendments]:
	[Amendments Nos. 114 to 117 not moved.]
	Clause 110 agreed to.
	Clause 111 agreed to.
	Clause 112 [Photographing of suspects etc.]:

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 79, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (4)(b) after "related" insert "; except that—
	(c) where a person's photograph has been taken because he falls within one of subsections (1B)(c) to (f) (but not within (1B)(a) or (b)), the photograph must not be disclosed to any person for any purpose and must be destroyed as soon as either proceedings relating to the fixed penalty notice have been concluded, or a decision has been taken not to commence, or to discontinue, proceedings against him.""

Lord Dholakia: The non-consensual photographing or video capture of people who have not been arrested for any offence engages the right to privacy, as protected by Article 8 of the European convention, as does the retention of the images.
	The Government have stated that the purpose of the provision is to prevent disputes about whether the person charged with an offence was the person required to wait with the community support officer or issued with a fixed penalty notice. That purpose is achieved when the proceedings are concluded or a decision is made not to initiate proceedings against the relevant person.
	If a decision is taken not to proceed against a person or issue them with a fixed penalty notice, there is no legitimate reason for the images to be retained by the police. As the person has not admitted or been convicted of any offence, there is no reason why their image should find its way on to a police database of potential suspects or be shared with other agencies. The interference with privacy occasioned by such retention and/or disclosure of the images would not be necessary in a democratic society or proportionate. It would also give scope for arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by police of people on the database who may not be guilty of any crime. We fear that it might lead to the unfair targeting of particular groups in the community. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The increasing use of interventions outside the police station means that it is appropriate to extend the range of circumstances in which a photograph can be taken and retained. Fixed penalty notices and requirements to wait with community support officers are examples of cases where the police will need to record their intervention through means of identification such as photographic images, so as to avoid later disputes about the identity of the person who was given the notice or was required to wait. I know that the noble Lord understands that, given the comments that he made.
	The photos should be retained in the same way as those currently taken inside the custody suite to prevent persons who may be wanted for other matters to avoid detection by giving the police a false name and address. The police should also be able to check the photographs against other still and moving images to determine whether the suspect is linked to any unsolved crimes.
	With that explanation, I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 79, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) After subsection (6A) (inserted by subsection (5) of this section) insert—
	"(6B) This section does not apply to—
	(a) a person aged under 17, or
	(b) a member of any group which is identified in a code of practice issued under this Act as a vulnerable group.""

Lord Dholakia: Amendment No. 119 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 120 and 122. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government on their intentions. I would like to have the Minister's advice on some serious issues that are of some concern to various groups outside the House that deal with children.
	As the Minister may be aware, the amendments were suggested by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. It has a clear point of concern. Under the present PACE codes, additional safeguards should be in place when young or vulnerable people are required to undergo any intrusive act at the request of a constable. Usually, the requirement is that an appropriate adult is with any young or vulnerable person taken to a police station for those activities to be undertaken. The concern has been expressed that those protections would go out of the window under the new provisions, unless there is an express provision in this part of the Bill to bring back the requirements in the PACE codes, thereby ensuring that the Government meet their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the position. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for indicating that the amendments are probing amendments. Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 would prevent the police from taking photographs and fingerprints from juveniles and other vulnerable persons on the street and under the existing provisions of PACE. I was perplexed, but I understand why he has framed the amendments in that way.
	Although appropriate safeguards are important when dealing with juveniles and vulnerable people in custody, it is also important that the police have the power to record or establish an individual's identity or gather evidence that can be used to investigate and detect crime. Sadly, juveniles are responsible for a large amount of crime, and precluding the police from taking their photograph or fingerprints would be a retrograde step. That is particularly so when one considers that the taking of photographs and fingerprints on the street could reduce the incidence of juveniles and vulnerable people being arrested and taken to the police station for the purpose of ascertaining their identity.
	I turn to Amendment No. 122. The "appropriate adult" safeguard is a valuable safeguard in protecting the interests and welfare of juveniles and other vulnerable groups in custody. Their role is set out in the relevant PACE codes of practice, and the codes should be the vehicle for measures relating to their role and functions. The proposal that they must be present when footwear impressions are taken has already been logged by the Home Office for inclusion in the next revision of the PACE codes, due later this year.
	For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord—with the agreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 112 agreed to.
	Clause 113 [Fingerprints]:
	[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 80, line 2, at end insert—
	"(6A) In subsection (1A), for "or the conduct of a prosecution" substitute ", the conduct of a prosecution or the identification of a deceased person or of the person from whom a body part came"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: These two amendments are designed to assist with the identification of the British victims of the tsunami that struck south-east Asia on Boxing Day. Currently, somewhat tragically, there are 169 confirmed or feared British victims of the tsunami. Officers from the Metropolitan Police are leading the painstaking task of ensuring that bodies are correctly identified before they are released to their families for burial. The sooner that process can be completed, the sooner the family and friends of the deceased can properly mourn the loss of their loved ones and bring closure to this tragic event.
	These amendments make a simple change to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to enable DNA samples and fingerprints to be checked against the national DNA and fingerprint databases for the purpose of the identification of a deceased person. As such, the change will apply to future natural disasters. It is not confined to the identification of the tsunami victims. The amendment to PACE will come into force on Royal Assent so that the checks can be undertaken speedily. I know that the Committee would wish relief to be given to those families in distress as quickly as possible and will join me in welcoming the amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness is right. I feel sure that other Benches will join me in supporting the amendments. The House is normally reticent about such matters as extending the occasions when DNA samples may be taken. This situation does not fall into those areas that antagonise Members of this House. We can only hope that the application of the new systems will enable families' feelings to at least be assuaged and that they may know whether a deceased person is of their family.

Lord Dholakia: We from this side also support the amendment for the reason identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 114 [Impressions of footwear]:
	[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
	Clause 114 agreed to.
	Clause 115 agreed to.
	Clause 116 [Photographing of suspects etc.]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 116 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Harris of Richmond: These Benches oppose Clauses 116 and 117 stand part of the Bill for the following reasons. Notwithstanding the explanatory letter from the Minister to a number of Peers who also spoke at Second Reading, her explanation that she intends to continue with the pilot schemes in no way helps to make the suggestion more palatable to a great number of people.
	In a letter to the Home Secretary, dated 1 April 2005, the chairman of the Police Federation and the president of the Police Superintendents' Association vehemently oppose that move. This is such an important part of the Bill that I will quote directly from the letter, which states:
	"We write to express our grave concerns over plans to civilianise the post of custody sergeant; views shared by Liberty, the Law Society, Justice, the head of police training (Centrex) and eminent QCs alike.
	"As we are sure you are aware, these proposals have sparked much emotive debate, not least because we would not wish to see it inadvertently lead to a rise in the numbers of deaths in police custody or reduce the number of crimes which are detected and result in a successful conviction.
	"Even at the eleventh hour, Clauses 116 and 117—two of the most ill thought through provisions in any single piece of police legislation—could be removed without otherwise affecting the primary aims and objectives of the SOCAP Bill.
	"The perversity of the decision to civilianise this, of all policing roles, is astounding. The post of custody sergeant is one of the least suited to civilianisation, requiring extensive policing skills, knowledge and experience.
	"We readily acknowledge problems exist in the recruitment and retention of custody sergeants, and the knock-on this has had upon the rank as a whole. Civilianisation, however, is a wholly facile solution. The real solution lies in addressing the underlying causes of those problems, namely acute staff shortages, cell overcrowding and meeting Centrex training and retraining requirements.
	"We fully recognise that one Force has agreed to take part in a pilot. But this 'support' represents only a tiny minority of chief officers, and it is spurious in the extreme to suggest otherwise (as in the Commons Standing Committee Stage). The fact remains that the vast majority of chief constables, including notable 'modernisers' such as Sir Ian Blair, are wholly against the plan.
	"It is unclear as to how Government statements in response to Lord Mackenzie's suggestions would ameliorate this suggestion. While the idea of station sergeants is an interesting development, it in no way addresses the real issue—the civilianisation of the post of custody sergeant. Only the pilot, not the Bill, would be amended.
	"It is for these reasons that we, the only staff organisations with operational policing perspective at this level, are fundamentally opposed to this provision and press for an urgent consideration".
	The Government have not given any sensible reason at all why they feel they must go down that route. The views expressed above are also shared by the chief executive of Centrex, Justice, the Law Society and others. It is a core, front-line, operational policing function—dealing with detainees after arrest but before charge. The custody officer determines whether an arrested person should be detained or should go free.
	Those decisions can often be taken at speed and under enormous pressure. Is the arrest lawful and necessary? Is there sufficient evidence to justify detention? The custody officer is wholly responsible for the safety and well-being of those in custody, which is an enormously responsible job. The substantive rank of sergeant has the authority and responsibility to deny a senior officer access to a suspect at an inappropriate time or in inappropriate circumstances.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that the role of custody sergeant be recognised by providing greater recognition and support, not more civilianisation. I can see nowhere any regulatory impact assessment for the cost of training civilian custody officers, which is an extraordinary omission in view of the Minister's assurances on training during the Bill's Committee stage in the other place.
	Finally, a pilot would rely heavily on the support, guidance and decision-making of a police custody sergeant, which would completely invalidate the evaluation. What happens if the pilots are deemed unsuccessful? The Government do not seem to have grasped that it is the whole panoply of policing know-how gained performing other police duties at street level which are critical to the effective management of custody suites.
	By all means incorporate the excellent ideas of having a station sergeant, but do not muddle them up with the unique role undertaken by a custody sergeant. And certainly do not believe that giving us the sop of a pilot will satisfy anyone at all in the policing world, because it will not.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: When the Minister opened our proceedings today, she pinpointed accurately the two major issues on which this House expressed concerns at Second Reading. She was careful to explain in detail why the Government feel that the role of the custody officer could be developed in a new direction.
	We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that custody sergeants, as they are now, have a supremely important role. It is certainly the case that we, too, wish to ensure that custody sergeants have the levels of skill and authority to enable them appropriately to carry out their duties.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has already referred to the strong feelings of the Police Federation on this. In its briefing the federation makes it clear that custody officers have an unusual role in the justice system because they have the right, under great pressure and at short notice, to determine whether someone is free on the streets or not. I know that none of us, let alone the Minister, underestimates the difficulty and importance of the role. Further, if a person is detained, the custody officer is then wholly responsible for his or her safety and well-being.
	It has been argued that only the substantive rank of sergeant carries the authority and responsibility to deny a senior officer access to a suspect at an inappropriate time or under inappropriate circumstances. Only someone with that clout—if I may call it that—might be able to persuade more senior officers that they may not override the custody officer's decision. All those points have informed our position on this matter.
	Initially, we thought that this role was most appropriately open to being civilianised—a ghastly term—but as we listened to the development of the arguments, we came to appreciate more fully the case being put by the Police Federation. However, we continue to listen. Earlier today the Minister made considerable efforts to explain the Government's position, particularly on ensuring that whoever performs this role in the future should be well trained and held in sufficiently high esteem by their colleagues to be able to carry out the current role with the same efficacy.
	While I have been able to listen to the noble Baroness, my colleagues in another place have not. I anticipate that she chose her words so carefully that they may feel that she has done enough to assuage their concerns, but I cannot speak for them. The Bill is to come before us again tomorrow for consideration on Report, and I shall certainly ensure that both the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and the Minister are made aware of our position before then. But if Hansard bears out what my ears have heard, we may not need to press the matter further.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is a very important matter. The noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Anelay, have set out the case in such detail that I need not say much. But it surely cannot be right to civilianise this element of police work. It is all right to civilianise clerical workers, telephonists, mechanics, drivers and so forth because they are not an inherent part of police work itself. However, the custody officer is very much part of police work.
	It is essential that criminals should recognise that they are being held in police custody, not in the custody of some civilian. They are being held because they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence. They would have been arrested by a police officer and would have been taken to a police station. At that point they should be put in a police cell and looked after by a policeman. What will criminals think if, after being arrested and charged in the police station, they are handed over to some civilian who is to look after them from then on? That simply cannot be right. It sends out the wrong message not only to the police, but also to civilians and criminals.
	I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said and that they have been in close contact with the Police Federation. The federation represents those who do the job on the ground. It is not done by Ministers and staff in the Home Office. Policemen do the job on the ground and in this instance they have the expertise, experience and knowledge and thus should be listened to.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said, the Bill will have its Report stage tomorrow. We are in a difficult situation and I believe that if it were being given proper consideration in Committee and on Report, we—not I, as one who is simply Independent Labour these days—in the form of the main opposition parties would press this Question to a vote. They probably do not want to do that but, given the assistance the Government have been given today by all sides of this House to get the Bill through, they ought to be good enough to hold conversations with the Secretary of State and persuade him to make this concession. Tomorrow—or perhaps even tonight; it would be marvellous if she could do so—I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, having considered all aspects of the issue and having listened to the concerns of the Police Federation and the debate in Committee, the Government have decided that the proposition that the clauses should not stand part should be agreed and that they will no longer proceed with this part of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, that we have listened to the arguments very carefully indeed. We agree with both the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Anelay, that the role of the custody officer is extremely important. They are absolutely right to point out that the job deserves authority and strength because it is that person who has to determine the question of access to an individual and/or whether they are or are not detained.
	However, the Bill is predicated on real change. I said earlier that the agency brings together senior and other individuals from a number of different agencies—immigration officers, Customs officers and others—many of whom have similar expertise. Most important, however, is that anyone who undertakes this enormously responsible job should be properly trained, be given the proper level of independence and should be able to do the job currently being undertaken by the custody officer—irrespective of the agency from which they may have originally come. Only people with those skills should be entrusted with this role.
	I hope that I have made clear that we are as concerned as all noble Lords about the skills and abilities that need to be evident for the discharge of this role. The chief officer must be satisfied that a person designated as a staff custody officer is suitable, capable, and has received adequate training. It does not mean that a police officer will not do the job because it may be that the chief officer's designation determines that the most able and appropriate person is a police officer. It does not necessarily mean that that has to be the case.
	Clauses 116 and 117 provide for the introduction of a new category of police staff—that of staff custody officer—and some consequential amendments to PACE. A person will be capable of being designated in this role if he or she is employed by the police authority for a particular force and is under the direction and control of the chief officer of that force.
	The role of custody officer under PACE is recognised as a significant safeguard both for the suspect and the integrity of the custody and investigation functions. I emphasise that there is no intention to dilute the key role of the custody officer, nor to dilute the ability of the custody officer to act independently of the investigative process.
	However, two issues have to be considered. First, as recognised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's thematic report, Modernising the Police Service, published in 2004, there are currently hundreds of experienced police sergeants acting as custody officers at a time when front-line supervisory experience is at a premium. Secondly, much of the work of the custody officer is largely process-driven. That does not suggest that the work is either routine or simply administrative. Far from it. The role of custody officer requires significant skills and abilities and, above all, requires the aptitude to apply those capabilities fairly, correctly and in circumstances where they may potentially attract adverse views from both policing colleagues and suspects' legal representatives.
	So, in dealing with the skills and abilities issue, the chief officer must be satisfied that a person designated as a staff custody officer is suitable, capable and has received adequate training. I set out earlier today the national occupational standards developed by Skills for Justice that are already in place and have formed the basis for an integrated competency framework, which sets out the tasks and outcomes to be achieved in the custody officer role.
	The National Centre for Policing Excellence is currently developing guidance that, in turn, will set out how the standards are to be achieved. The tripartite system that is being developed will not only clearly set out occupational standards for use by existing custody officers but, importantly, have in place definitive standards for both police and police staff employed in this task.
	I understand the possible concerns of Members of the Committee that the custody officer has to be an experienced police officer who has the authority to make and impose a decision with independence. The authority and the independence of the role is set out in PACE, and that Act provides the custody officer with recourse to a superintendent in the event that his or her authority is questioned. The 1984 Act recognised similar concerns about a police sergeant undertaking the duties that we are now hearing about a member of police staff performing.
	Added to this, we know from responses to the 2002 review of PACE, from pilot studies on the use of police staff and from the consultation exercise on police powers last autumn, that many police officers welcome the introduction of staff custody officers and the opportunity to get out from behind a desk.
	We are currently discussing with the police and other key stakeholders the potential to pilot the role of staff custody officers in six force areas. The pilot studies would focus significantly on selection, training requirements and the practical application in the police station. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is particularly concerned about that.
	The pilot study would be subject to independent evaluation and would look to determine three elements: the efficacy of using police staff for this important role; the ability to use police staff solely in the role of custody officer; and the ability of a staff custody officer to make all decisions under PACE, with the potential for using a police sergeant or other rank in the role of custody supervisor.
	We are not wedded to a specific outcome other than providing the ability for chief officers to make best use of the skills and knowledge available to them in the handling and treatment of suspects. I believe that this will help allay some of the perceptions and provide an opportunity to build on the already successful use of police staff in a number of force areas. The piloting, the testing and the independent evaluation will ensure that we have got it right and that chief officers have the flexibility to exercise the discretion in a robust and appropriate way.
	Much will depend on the evaluation, which will assist us in deciding whether we have got it right, whether it works, whether it is practical, whether it is safe and whether it is proper. We think that it will be. We shall see. The pilots will help us to determine whether it is and we think that the Committee will be pleased by the results.

Lord Elton: In preparing for tomorrow's stage of the Bill, will the Minister try to provide examples of other occasions when policemen have had to take directions from a non-policeman with authority over them and it has worked well?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall certainly endeavour to do so but normally that relates to other constructs—for example, working in partnership with professionals in the health sphere and elsewhere.
	We have to appreciate that we are creating a very different agency. The whole concept of SOCA is to move away from the silo-based working that has delivered results but not as many as we think we can achieve by working together in closer partnership. The fundamental nature of SOCA is in issue because it is not a replication of what we have done before in linking together silo-based entities; it is a new agency which will work in an integrated, inter-disciplinary way for the better management and efficacy of a criminal justice system focused on dealing with serious and organised crime. It is very difficult to find old examples of what you intend to do when you propose something entirely new.
	I commend Clauses 116 and 117 to the Committee. I invite the noble Baroness to be content with the explanation I have put forward for the Committee's consideration.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: I thank the Minister for her very full account of what she believes custody sergeants do. I set out very clearly what I believe they do, and the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents' Association and a whole range of other very senior policing people also feel that way. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am deeply dissatisfied with her response.

Clause 116 agreed to.
	Clause 117 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.?

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 13 [Exercise of Commissioners' functions by officers]:

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 6, line 26, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
	"(d) giving instructions for the disclosure of information under section 20(1)(a), except that an officer of Revenue and Customs may give an instruction under section 20(1)(a) authorising disclosure of specified information relating to—
	(i) one or more specified persons,
	(ii) one or more specified transactions, or
	(iii) specified goods."

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in moving government Amendment No. 1 and speaking to government Amendment No. 2, I wish, first, to set out the context as we move to the final stage of the Bill's scrutiny in this House. There have been some important debates and useful discussions, both on the Floor of the House and in other meetings, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, speaking for the party opposite, and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, all of whom I met the week before last. I put forward some proposals for meeting their concerns around certain issues, in particular taxpayer confidentiality and public interest disclosures. They responded very constructively, I am glad to say, so the Government have been able to bring forward appropriate amendments. They also asked a number of questions in addition to those concerning public interest disclosure, on the mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of integration and the governance and accountability arrangements for the new department. I want to cover those points in our debate on the other amendments that have been tabled.
	I think, in truth, there has been little between any of us where the principles of these matters are concerned. But I recognise that there have been genuine and honestly held differences of opinion over the manner in which those principles should be delivered in the Bill. I look forward to a constructive and useful debate on these matters and support for what I hope will be accepted are the Government's genuine attempts to ensure that we reached consensus so that the Bill could leave this House in a form that is fully supported by all.
	Collectively, government Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 address the issue of to whom, and to what extent, the commissioners may delegate the function of issuing instructions for disclosing in the public interest. The amendments provide for two things: first, they provide for the commissioners—or a single commissioner, by virtue of government Amendment No. 2—to delegate to officers the issuing of one-off, individual disclosures. Those are defined as disclosures which relate to one or more specified persons, transactions or goods. All such disclosures, I respectfully remind the House, must fall within the categories of public interest disclosure permitted by Clause 20. I shall be moving a later amendment to put those on the face of the Bill.
	Individual disclosures are one of two types of disclosure that may be made. The other type of disclosure will be made under general instructions. These will provide for disclosure of similar information in comparable, narrowly defined circumstances. However, it will be for wider categories of circumstances, not one-off cases. Noble Lords have made very clear their preference that such instructions should be approved at not less than commissioner level.
	The second purpose of my amendment is to give effect to the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Earl at Report, subject to the exception that I have described above. I accept that general instructions are a rather different matter from instructions relating to individual cases. Because, by their nature, they will apply to more established patterns of disclosure, the question of urgency does not arise. I touched on that point the previous time we debated the Bill.
	I also accept that because of the greater breadth of their scope, the case for requiring a higher level of authorisation can be made. It is for those reasons that Amendment No. 1, while permitting authorisation of disclosure in individual cases to be delegated, prevents the delegation below commissioner level of the decision to authorise class disclosure instructions.
	Amendment No. 2 does no more than tidy up Amendment No. 5, which was moved by the noble Earl at Report. It achieves exactly the same purpose of ensuring that the issuing of general instructions is delegated no further than to a single commissioner. That is the purpose of the two amendments which I hope meet the objectives of the noble Earl and of other noble Lords.
	I should like to turn to a specific question that has been put to me in correspondence from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and say a little more about the controls on those one-off disclosures that may be authorised by officers below commissioner level. There will be a variety of checks and balances in place to ensure that individual instructions to disclose are made by officers only when appropriate and an appropriate level of management scrutiny occurs in relation to disclosures that have been made. I understand that the noble Baroness particularly wanted me to say something about the latter, and that I will do.
	Let me emphasise the first point. The circumstances in which an officer may consider giving a specific instruction to disclose information will be set out in detailed and comprehensive guidance. That guidance will have to be approved by the nominated commissioner. That will ensure that those officers who can authorise public interest disclosures will at all times be acting within guidance and limitations which have been agreed by the named commissioner.
	A fundamental part of that guidance will set out the arrangements that will apply for ex-post assurance checks on disclosures. Let me spell out the key features of the regime. Officers will have to log details of all public interest disclosures that they make. Examples include the information disclosed, the identity of the recipient, the purpose of the disclosure and the outcome of the judgments made as to necessity and proportionality. Then senior managers will conduct assurance checks on these records to see that authorisations were given only where appropriate and that the disclosure was carried out only in accordance with the terms of the authorisation. These checks will be based upon a sample of the cases recorded within the records.
	In all cases, the officer conducting the assurance check will be more senior than the officer who authorised the disclosure. In many cases, that will mean that checks will be carried out by someone who, in PACE terms, is equivalent to a police chief superintendent or above.
	It would not be practical to expect the nominated commissioner to conduct these checks on what may be a high number of cases. But where the checks reveal problems with the guidance or with the way that the disclosure regime is operating in practice, the matter can and will be escalated for consideration of changes to the guidance that may be required. The commissioner will then consider any changes that are necessary.
	In addition to this routine, ongoing quality assurance, the nominated commissioner will be consulted where significant issues arise in relation to public interest disclosures, for example on questions arising from operational experience. The guidance will require emerging patterns of individual disclosures to be reported for the nominated commissioner to consider giving a class disclosure instruction—we have discussed that before—and the nominated commissioner may at any time request information from officers relating to any aspect of the public interest disclosure regime, such as information regarding the implementation of procedures or concerning individual cases.
	I have taken a little trouble to set out the arrangements in some detail so that noble Lords understand what we have in mind. I hope that they will agree that the arrangements offer substantial and robust mechanisms for auditing those public interest disclosures made by officers which are on an individual basis rather than in accordance with the general instructions.
	In conclusion, the amendments represent a real attempt to meet the specific concerns that have been eloquently put by noble Lords on this important topic. I am very pleased to be able to offer these assurances and improvements to the Bill, together with a tightening up of administrative procedures.
	I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments—and I am grateful for the thought that has gone into the issues that have been raised—strike the right balance between the operational requirements which are necessary and the stringent safeguards that we have all been keen to see in place to protect confidentiality. I hope that noble Lords will therefore be able to support this package. I beg to move.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I apologise for being a little late into the Chamber and not hearing the first few sentences of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. That said, I express my thanks to him. I am particularly grateful for the consistently sympathetic hearing he has given to my concerns about the power to delegate. I am also particularly grateful for the distinction that is proposed to be drawn between class disclosures and those specific occasions when disclosure may be required and the presumption of a nominated commissioner for the disclosure regime.
	For my part, I am content that the amendments deal with the concerns I have consistently expressed in an entirely admirable and satisfactory way. As I say, I am grateful.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I would like to add to what my noble friend said. From these Benches, we have been very appreciative of the way in which the noble and learned Lord responded to the concerns that were expressed in the earlier stages of the Bill which resulted in amendments being passed at Report, the speedy way that he dealt with the issues after that and the constructive way in which he and his officials developed a solution that was satisfactory to all parties. It is a model that I hope will be repeated in the next Parliament when we come to such difficult issues.
	I should emphasise that we were never trying to stop Customs officials on the borders dealing with terrorism and other immediate threats of illegality. Our concern was about taxpayer information sitting in offices up and down the land. These clauses have highlighted the difficulty in putting together the two different kinds of organisation that Customs and the Inland Revenue represent. One deals with a rather static information and the other deals with real-life situations. The amendments focus our minds on how to accommodate both situations. The result is an improvement to the Bill.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my particular concern with this Bill has been, as the noble and learned Lord knows, the setting up of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. From the very beginning, we have supported the Government on this initiative, so it remains for me to express the thanks of my noble friend Lord Newby, who cannot be here today, to the noble and learned Lord and his officials for all the great assistance that they have given in coming to a satisfactory settlement of these issues.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl said. Perhaps he missed the thanks that I expressed to him in my first few sentences. I repeat those now and also thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Delegation]:

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"(3) The commissioners may not delegate the function under section 20(1)(a) except to a single Commissioner."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 7, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) Where the Commissioner or a number of commissioners delegate a function to a committee by virtue of subsection (1)(b), and that committee includes a majority of persons who are neither commissioners nor staff of the commissioners nor officers of Customs and Excise—
	(a) the Commissioner or those commissioners shall monitor the exercise of the function by that committee;
	(b) in the exercise of the function, the members of the committee shall comply with any direction of the commissioners or those commissioners."

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendment No. 4 which deals in a different way with some of the loose ends around the delegations that are allowed by Clause 14.
	Amendment No. 3 deals with the role of the commissioners once they have delegated their functions. We have no basic problem with the fact that the commissioners have to delegate their functions, but we do believe that having delegated those functions, they need to control what happens after they have delegated. That is what Amendment No. 3 is about. When the commissioners delegate under Clause 14(1)(b) to a committee, that committee can include commissioners and officers, but it can also include outsiders. It is the latter category that potentially causes the problem.
	If there are outsiders on a committee to which functions are delegated and those outsiders are in the majority, we must ensure that the commissioners can control what happens in that committee. If the commissioners are delegated to a person rather than a committee under Clause 14(1)(c), other provisions kick in by virtue of subsection (4). First, the commissioners have to monitor the exercise of the delegated function and, secondly, the delegate has to comply with the directions of the commissioners. Therefore, Amendment No. 3 provides a mirror of subsection (4) and repeats these two provisions for committees controlled by non-HMRC people.
	This concern is not entirely fanciful because it is clear that committees can be comprised wholly or mainly of outsiders. In Grand Committee we talked about an audit committee that would be comprised wholly of outsiders and I do not suggest for a moment that audit committees would be a problem. However, the Act does allow virtually all the functions apart from very limited restrictions that apply to old Inland Revenue functions which are laid out in the clause. Therefore, all of the existing Customs and Excise functions and the vast majority of the old Inland Revenue functions can be delegated to a committee and that committee can be wholly or mainly comprised of non-HMRC people. That is what concerns us.
	The theme of confidentiality also drives Amendment No.4. We were pleased that the Government amended the Bill in another place to ensure that there was a declaration of confidentiality for commissioners and their staff, but because the way in which both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise now work has changed over time and more contractors are involved in the operations, there is a concern about how those involved in the private sector organisations are aware of the confidentiality requirement. I accept that the duty of confidentiality applies to people who deal with taxpayer information: the issue is how do we make sure that they are aware of their obligations?
	Amendment No. 4 would ensure that people are aware of their obligations and it is designed in a way that does not force HMRC into a straitjacket. It can either use the declaration route or something similar. It would give the commissioners discretion. When we debated this matter in Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord said that he would consider further what might be done about that category of person, so I am hoping that the noble and learned Lord will be able to respond positively to the thought behind the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I will first take Amendment No. 3 because that looks, as the noble Baroness explained, at the position of monitoring and control by the commissioners of committees on which neither commissioners nor their officers sit as a majority.
	I can clarify the arrangements for her. She is right to note that the Bill makes a different provision between that where there is a delegation to another person and that to a committee that is established. However, as far as monitoring is concerned, which is the first of the noble Baroness's issues, the procedures will be the same. Those committees established by the commissioners will be under the direct supervision of the commissioners and monitoring will be part and parcel of that supervision. In particular, under Clause 12(1)(b), the commissioners are required to make specific arrangements for the conduct of the proceedings by their committees. Therefore, as far as monitoring is concerned I can assure the noble Baroness that the monitoring aspect will be dealt with.
	However, there is a difference so far as the directions of the commissioners are concerned. That is an important distinction because there will be some committees—an audit committee is the best example—where it is important that the committee has independence in its actions. As I described in my letter to the noble Baroness of 2 March, senior committees of the HMRC will include as members,
	"persons who are neither commissioners nor staff nor officers of HM Revenue and Customs",
	that is, non-executive directors.
	HM Revenue and Customs is committed to establish an audit committee. In accordance with best corporate governance practice, membership would be restricted to only non-executive directors, so that the whole point is that this committee is independent of executive directors. Therefore, to provide in that situation that the committee should be subject to the directions of the commissioners would go against that necessary independence. That is the fundamental reason for the difference between the arrangements that are in place.
	Having said that, I am sure that the noble Baroness will also see that, in relation to all the functions delegated to their committees, the commissioners will remain accountable for the work that is delegated. Therefore the proper performance by those committees of their activities can be assured.
	I turn to Amendment No. 4. I said that even if I would not consider what further should be put into the Bill, I would at least consider what more I could say about the position on confidentiality, and I am happy to put that position on the record. It has been absolute common ground from when I made my opening speech on Second Reading that we agree about the paramount importance of taxpayer confidentiality, and the importance therefore of ensuring the awareness of confidentiality obligations. Let me therefore spell out the safeguards. I have already said what they are on several occasions, but lest there be any misunderstanding, I shall repeat them again.
	The requirement in Clause 3 is for new officers and commissioners of the department, but the other obligations of confidentiality imposed by the Bill—the statutory duty of confidentiality backed by the criminal sanction—will apply to non-executive directors and those acting on behalf of the department, not just to regular staff. So those obligations are there. That message is made clear to anyone first gaining access to confidential information and is supported by further periodic messages from managers and others for so long as they are in contact with the information.
	I shall take that a stage further. Non-executives will sign contracts with the departments which will contain acknowledgements of the duty of confidentiality. As for contractors, who could be IT support staff, consultant security staff and so on, there will be a number of safeguards appropriate to the circumstances. First, access to confidential information will be limited to business need. Access to information services will be available only when it is necessary and important to the job to be done. For example, security staff will not need or be given any access to taxpayer-confidential information, and in the main nor will those working in IT support, so there will be no need for those contractors to make any specific declaration of confidentiality.
	Secondly, when the department judges it necessary, it can compel every person working for a contractor to sign an undertaking of confidentiality. That will be written into all the contracts of those working under contract. The department may not consider it necessary in all cases. One would not, for example, think that those contractors who were making travel bookings needed to make such specific declarations of confidentiality. But the ability will be exercised when it is needed.
	Thirdly, a confidentiality clause will be written into all contracts at the company or service provider level.
	I hope that that answers the substance of the noble Baroness's point. It is slightly churlish of me to draw attention to a technical error in the drafting of the amendment, but I had better do so, because it refers to,
	"officers of Customs and Excise",
	when previous versions correctly referred to,
	"officers of Revenue and Customs".
	But I hope very much that we need not trouble about that, because I hope that we have reassured the noble Baroness about the substance of the two amendments to persuade her that we are entirely in agreement on what we are trying to achieve, that there is enough to achieve those objectives and that she need not press either of her amendments to a Division.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord knows, I had not intended to press the amendments, so he need not have pointed out the fatal flaw, but I know that Ministers like to do so.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, officials like to make sure that Ministers do so. Ministers would much rather not.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I completely accept that point.
	I was much encouraged by what the Minister had to say in particular about how confidentiality requirements would be drawn to the attention of those who come across taxpayer information as contractors. That was important.
	As for committees, I do not want to rerun the debates that we had in Grand Committee about audit and other committees. I fully accept that audit committees are not at the heart of the problem and should not be burdened by controls by commissioners. My concern was with other kinds of committees. I am not sure that I am 100 per cent satisfied with the response, but we shall have to see whether it causes problems in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 5:
	After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
	"PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
	(1) Regulations shall make provision as to criteria for pre-disclosure assessment of the use of sensitive confidential information obtained from the taxpayer for a purpose other than that for which it is proposed to be made; and as to prior authorisation and external oversight.
	(2) The criteria referred to in subsection (1) shall have regard to the nature of such information, and the purpose for which it is proposed to be used as being proportionate to the requirement for disclosure.
	(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument and no such instrument may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the amendment has a very limited application. It is limited to the use of confidential information and to Clause 17(1), which is the source of some problems. The subsection states:
	"Information required by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function may be used by them in connection with any other function".
	The amendment is quite distinct and separate from amendments concerning disclosure of information, relating to Clause 18(2)(b), (c) and (d). In the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, those paragraphs are wholly satisfactory—but not Clause 17(1), with regard to the use in the circumstances.
	The fundamental issue of contention between the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and myself is whether the safeguards proposed by the Bill, which reflect the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, should have legal efficacy, according to law, under Article 8.2 of the convention, as proposed by the amendment, which in effect is a trigger clause for secondary legislation having legal efficacy. Is this not requisite to afford compatibility with the convention in this context, as to pre-assessment, prior authorisation and external oversight?
	Before reading three or four extracts from the first progress report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which are strictly related to the matter, may it be said at once that all that that committee does is to advise both Houses on compatibility with the convention? That is objective advice, wholly devoid of any political motivation. Of course, it is but advice and it is open to either House to ignore it or reject it if they wish. The second progress report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights published on 2 February deals specifically with this at paragraph 1.17, which states that,
	"there is nothing on the face of the Bill which sets out any criteria to guide decisions about the use for one purpose of information which has been acquired for another purpose, nor does it provide any procedural safeguards regulating the decision whether such use for a different purpose is necessary and appropriate in a particular case. The Explanatory Notes state that 'management controls ensure that the use of the information will be appropriate and proportionate'. Reliance on 'management controls' to guarantee the appropriateness and proportionality of using personal information does not satisfy the requirement that interferences with the right to respect for private life must be 'in accordance with the law'. In order to satisfy that requirement, the controls on the use of information must be legal controls, providing legally binding safeguards against improper use of information. We have therefore written to the Government asking for more detail about the 'management controls' designed to ensure that information is used appropriately and proportionately, and asking that better safeguards be set out on the face of the Bill".
	Paragraph 1.18 of the report states:
	"We would remind the Government that the onus is on it to specify the precise aims which are relied upon in Article 8(2) as justifying the interference with Article 8 rights".
	Paragraph 1.27 of the report states:
	"The Government rely—
	incidentally, the Government still rely on this. A copy of a letter arrived on my desk this morning dated 4 April—
	"on the fact that when making disclosures of confidential information, HMRC will still be under a duty to comply with both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998. While this is legally correct, in practical terms it does not provide an answer to the lack of effective safeguards for the reasons pointed out by . . . ('the Newton Report') in the context of that Act's provision for public bodies to disclose information to assist criminal investigations or proceedings, or to the intelligence and security agencies—
	The protection offered by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998 seems to us to be illusory since the burden will lie on the individual to complain about the disclosure of their confidential information in circumstances where, almost by definition, he or she will be unlikely to know that disclosure has occurred".
	Paragraph 1.28 of the report states:
	"The applicability of both the HRA 1998 and the DPA 1998 is therefore no substitute for strong safeguards in the statutory scheme to ensure that the power to disclose confidential information about an individual, of which that individual will generally be unaware, is only exercised in circumstances where it is proportionate to do so".
	Paragraph 1.29 states:
	"Three important safeguards which are desirable in relation to regimes for the disclosure of confidential information are pre-disclosure assessment, prior authorisation and external oversight".
	Paragraph 1.32 states:
	"The Newton Report points out that prior authorisation safeguards have traditionally been considered particularly important when an individual is unlikely to know that such powers are being exercised against him . . . In our view the same applies in relation to the present Bill".
	Paragraph 1.33 states:
	"The Bill also makes no provision for independent external oversight of the disclosure regime".
	That is not relevant to the use regime with which I am concerned.
	That advice was confirmed very shortly by four references to the second report. Paragraph 1.7 of the 13th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights states:
	"We remain concerned, however"—
	a letter dated 10 February had been received which still maintained the attitude which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General maintains to this day—
	"at the breadth of the discretion to share information internally as it is currently drafted in this Bill. The Bill provides that 'information acquired by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function may be used by them in connection with any other function' . . . There are no statutory criteria to guide decisions about when information obtained for [one] purpose can be used for another, merely a very broad enabling provision appearing to make such use lawful".
	Paragraph 1.8 of the 13th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights states:
	"Our main concern in this respect is to ensure that the legal framework, as set out in primary legislation, does not confer overbroad discretions to interfere with private life . . . In our view, such powers to share information internally should contain on their face the criteria to guide decisions as to whether the use of information obtained for one purpose can be used for another".
	Having read that, you can see that in fact the drafting of the amendment intends to reflect the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is that advice on which I rely and not on any interpretation that I seek to put on it.
	One final factor is relevant. Although the culture of Revenue matters is wholly disparate from that of the practices of the Customs and Excise, the HMRC to whom Revenue matters are to be preferred will now have a merged prosecution service. I see certain noble Lords here with experience of such affairs who have expressed certain anxieties about that during the passage of the Bill. What it comes to is quite simple. Is not the question whether protection of the taxpayer, advised to be a requisite by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and as reflected in the amendment, is fair and reasonable? I beg to move.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend. Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, he has been consistent in arguing the case for the principles of prior authorisation for and pre-assessment of the criteria to be applied to disclosure of taxpayer information. In so doing, he has sought to put in the Bill the legitimate concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he is such a distinguished member.
	Indeed, it is salutary to reflect that notwithstanding the frequency of the correspondence between the Paymaster General and its chairman, the JCHR remains of the opinion that in the interests of transparency, certainty and "foreseeability" some element of provision in this respect should appear in the Bill.
	It is to the credit of my noble friend that at this late stage of the Bill he has moderated the terms of his amendment even though, as I understand it, the JCHR continued to favour a provision that would afford a measure of judicial oversight. Despite that, my noble friend has drafted a more limited and modest amendment that only requires regulations that,
	"make provision as to criteria for pre-disclosure . . . of . . . sensitive confidential information obtained from the taxpayer".
	Equally, I am well aware that the actions and operations of HMRC in respect of the disclosure regime will have to be compliant with both the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. That is not, and never has been, the point at issue. Like the JCHR, I believe that there are voluble justifications, not least—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would agree—the importance of confidentiality to the integrity of the tax base in affording taxpayers degrees of certainty about the disclosure regime by ensuring that appropriate protections of their interests appear in the Bill. I support the amendment.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, just before I address the substance of the comments made by the noble Lord, I want to clarify one aspect of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill, which it would be useful to put on the record. The noble Lord referred to the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office. Information from that office may be disclosed to HM Revenue and Customs under Clause 41(2)(b) for the purposes of any of HMRC's functions.
	I am grateful for the explanation of the substance of the amendment and of what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I understand his intention, but in any event I have some technical problems with the amendment, even before one comes to the intention. The amendment does not require regulations to be made before information may be used by HMRC. It does not connect with the other provisions in the Bill, so it would appear that the provision could simply rest on the statute book while HMRC properly carried out its functions and used information for a variety of purposes in accordance with the law, as is done at the moment.
	If Parliament were minded to make regulations, there would remain something of a conundrum in discerning what they ought to address. The issues that Parliament is charged with addressing in the regulations are not clear in the draft. I see that the noble Lord proposes that:
	"Regulations shall make provision as to . . . prior authorisation",
	but I respectfully suggest that it is unsatisfactory to state that without being clear about the detail that Parliament wants to be provided. The amendment does not say who should provide that authorisation or whether it is intended to apply in relation to all cases, or give criteria to identify in which cases it should apply. Although I respect what the noble Lord has in mind, it does not seem a satisfactory way of leaving matters at this stage in a Bill.
	I have the same problem with the proposal that:
	"Regulations shall make provision as to . . . external oversight",
	because, in that, Parliament is not saying what sort of external oversight it has in mind, particularly given what has been said already on record about the external oversight that takes place. If we passed the amendment, we would be leaving it apparently entirely open either for the executive to make regulations that in some way touched on the requirements mentioned but without any detail, or—this worries me even more—to leave the debate on what Parliament had in mind for another day when the regulations came back. We would have the debate all over again.
	I also have to say, again with great respect to the noble Lord, that he introduced the amendment on the basis that he was concerned with the use provision in Clause 17, not the disclosure of confidential information under Clause 18. However, the passages to which he particularly drew attention from the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights were related to the provision on disclosure of confidential information rather than to the use provision.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, the passages to which I referred are strictly related to Clause 17(1), not to Clause 18. I do not want to argue with him if he wants to take another view. If he reads the passages again, he will understand.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not say that in any sense to be disagreeable, but I noted the way that the noble Lord put it. I have an important point of substance that I hope that he will accept. Paragraph 1.22 in the most recent report states in terms:
	"We asked the Minister to give consideration to three specific types of stronger safeguard"—
	I understand those to be the safeguards in the amendment—
	"which in our view would make it more likely in practice that disclosures of confidential information under the Bill's provisions are compatible with Article 8 ECHR".
	That is concerned with the disclosure of confidential information. It is under the section of the report that deals with disclosure. The section of the report that deals with use—the noble Lord read it out, but it is not the part that picks up the three safeguards to which he drew attention—states at paragraph 1.6 that the committee,
	"found the Minister's response very helpful. We are reassured that there exist numerous procedural safeguards at the administrative level designed to ensure that information is only shared where both necessary and appropriate. We also accept the necessity for administrative level safeguards, giving concrete practical effect to the safeguards contained in the Bill, and that such detailed safeguards need not be spelt out on the face of the legislation itself".
	It is absolutely right to point out that the committee goes on to say two things. The first is that it remains concerned at the breadth of the discretion in Clause 17(1)—the noble Lord drew attention to that. Secondly, it states in paragraph 1.8 that:
	"It may well be that the administrative level safeguards supply this omission and make it clear that information is only to be shared internally if such use satisfies a test for proportionality which includes consideration of its necessity".
	I read that out simply for these purposes and I noted the way that the noble Lord phrased the amendment. Particularly at this stage, in the Third Reading of the Bill, which we hope will soon become law—and we all support that—there should be no misunderstanding of the amendment. I remain in some doubt. It is not a doubt of principle, it is a doubt as to whether or not the noble Lord has, in saying that he is only concerned with use, picked up what the Joint Human Rights Committee says.
	The point of substance, to which I draw warmly and respectfully his attention, is that amendments have been made as a result of the debate which has taken place, including the discussions that we have had in Grand Committee and on Report, which have put further safeguards in the Bill. The disclosure in the public interest, which, importantly, takes the matter outside the functions of Revenue and Customs, will now describe, if the House approves the amendment which I plan to move in a few moments, the types of disclosure that may be made. Importantly, it will include statements of the criteria—for example, in Amendment No. 13, if,
	"the disclosure is made for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime",
	or the disclosure is made,
	"to a person exercising public functions in relation to public safety or public health".
	The reason for drawing attention to the fact that, in the view of the Joint Committee, this matter is concerned with the disclosure of confidential information is that I have been trying to assure the noble Lord that the amendments that we are making regarding confidentiality touch on his concerns.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall not take the advantage, because the noble and learned Lord has, yet again—not wilfully—totally misinterpreted and misunderstood the principle behind this matter and the comments of the committee. I shall say no more.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I was not pressing the noble Lord to intervene if he had not wished to. I emphasise that I have listened carefully to noble Lords' concerns, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill. We have gone a long way to meet the concerns that have been expressed in relation to confidentiality in a number of ways.
	I wish to make a final and important point of substance. We do not differ in principle about the importance of imposing safeguards by law as to the way that information may be used. The difference between us, which I have some difficulty in understanding, is that we say on the on the face of the Bill that the Data Protection Act applies. That carries with it important statutory obligations. It carries with it the obligation that the principle of fairness shall apply in the use of information under the Data Protection Act. It carries with it the obligation to comply with the obligations of necessity. We do not say on the on the face of the Bill that the Human Rights Act applies, because, of course, it does. That is common ground between us. Actually, in a sense, we do say in the Bill that the Act applies, because I have signed a certificate saying that the Act, in my opinion, is compatible.
	We do not have any disagreement that the Human Rights Act imports a requirement by law that the type of sensitive and confidential information with which the noble Lord is concerned may be an intrusion on privacy only if it is justified in accordance with Article 8(2). That means that it must be proportionate and for one of the limited purposes.
	My real point is that, given that the law requires the Data Protection Act principles of necessity and fairness and the Human Rights Act principle of proportionality for limited purposes, and given that we have gone even further on the face of the Bill with public interest disclosure, are we not doing enough to say on the face of the Bill how information may be used? Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that the noble Lord has more than fulfilled the task that he set himself of drawing to the attention of this House the observations of the Joint Human Rights Committee.
	We believe that we are achieving what is needed in order to safeguard taxpayer confidentiality in the use of the information. We believe that that is done in the way that the Bill presently provides and that there are—this is why I drew attention to it—difficulties with the noble Lord's amendment. I entirely take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, sought to deal with other difficulties in the way that he put the amendment forward, but it still does not meet the objective.
	Therefore, in what I hope is a spirit of acceptance of the noble Lord's intentions, reassurance to the noble Lord about what we have been seeking to do and, in particular, reassurance that we agree with him, as I have agreed with all noble Lords from the very start, about the importance of the use of this information by HMRC, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not want to take too much time over technical problems. This amendment is put forward for acceptance in principle. The principle is that, according to the requirements of the convention, a trigger clause is needed to introduce secondary legislation. I know that the noble and learned Lord does not agree with that for one moment and that he never has and never will, but that is the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Therefore, there is not much object in picking at the form of the amendment, which in fact reflects the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is not supposed to predicate or pre-empt the precise form of the regulation because that is a matter for the affirmation of Parliament. So, inevitably, if you look for a trigger clause, you do not find the detail, and there is none.
	As for the principle, which is the main matter of contention between us, the point is simply that it is as plain as a pikestaff from the reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the approach of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to having these safeguards in the Bill is an issue and that this amendment resolves that issue in accordance with the recommendations of the committee. In those circumstances, I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 90.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 9, line 23, after "18(1)" insert "or 20(9)"

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I believe that government Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9 to 13 and 20 achieve what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seek. They also improve on their amendments in a number of ways. For those reasons I shall resist Amendments Nos. 8 and 14 to 19.
	The group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 8 and 14 to 19, put forward by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness propose to freeze the draft regulations in their first exposed form and to write them into the Bill as the first description of public interest disclosures for HMRC.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, there has been a great deal of debate on the safeguards surrounding public interest disclosures in terms of how they are made, in what circumstances and under which controls.
	Nothing in Clause 20 will override the requirements of the ECHR. There is also a need to strike the right balance between the effective operation of public interest disclosure provisions for HMRC with the ability for full and proper parliamentary scrutiny of that process. I recognise the clear preference of noble Lords for a solution that places what would have been contained in the initial set of regulations in the Bill and I advise noble Lords that I am now prepared to move a considerable way towards accommodating that clear wish.
	The most important question that I have faced is whether placing the provisions in the Bill would compromise operational imperatives. I am satisfied that it would not. I have also taken on board the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that there should be greater transparency by including the regulations in the Bill—a point pressed by the noble Earl both, if I may put it this way, as litigant in person and, earlier, when he had counsel in Grand Committee.
	However, the noble Earl's amendments tabled on Report threw up some technical problems. In some cases, they would freeze in the Bill the text of the regulations as they were at a draft stage. So I have tabled a similar amendment faithful to the principle of what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, want to achieve, but which addresses the technical points and makes the legislation workable.
	Perhaps I may put on record a point of clarification regarding terminology used in the text of Amendment No. 13:
	"an international or other agreement of the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Government",
	covers both formal international treaties and memoranda of understanding entered into by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Commissioners for Revenue and Customs with public authorities abroad for the purposes of securing the due administration of their respective customs laws.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, 9 to 13 and 20 improve on the amendments of the noble Earl and noble Baroness, in that they provide for the regulations to be placed in the Bill while also providing for the most appropriate regulation-making power. So the text of the public interest disclosure regulations will be put on the face of the Bill; a regulation-making power will be introduced which does not confer a Henry VIII power on the Treasury. We debated that last time. Any future regulations will be tightly drawn in terms of the description of public interest being narrowed to specific circumstances—crime, national security, health and safety. In that way, I believe that we have made it all the clearer that there is no case for the super-affirmative procedure.
	In the circumstances, I invite agreement with the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform that the normal affirmative procedure is the right way to proceed here. The government amendments mean that we can dispense with the accelerated affirmative procedure for the first set of regulations. That conforms with the noble Earl's amendment on Report. We have corrected the issue of the offence of wrongful disclosure by making that apply where there is onward disclosure without the commissioner's consent.
	I hope that that sufficiently meets the concerns raised. I am grateful for our discussions on the matter. Now that I have tabled these amendments and said what I have on the record, I hope that we can reach a consensus on the government amendments without need for other amendments to be pressed.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, once again, I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I am entirely satisfied that my amendments in this group are an inferior version of the Government's intention to place the draft regulations in the Bill, so I do not intend to move them. That being so, I have no hesitation in supporting and commending the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble and learned Lord. I should have preferred it if he could have added a little more information about some of the administrative procedures that the Government have in mind for HMRC, but I shall not pursue that issue too vigorously, bearing in mind the lateness of our proceedings. I merely repeat that I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 10, line 9, after "18(1)" insert "or 20(9)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Public interest disclosure]:
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 13:
	Page 10, line 13, leave out "made"
	Page 10, line 14, at beginning insert "it is made"
	Page 10, line 15, leave out "and"
	Page 10, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) it is of a kind—
	(i) to which any of subsections (2) to (7) applies, or
	(ii) specified in regulations made by the Treasury, and
	(c) the Commissioners are satisfied that it is in the public interest."
	Page 10, line 17, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—
	"(2) This subsection applies to a disclosure made—
	(a) to a person exercising public functions (whether or not within the United Kingdom),
	(b) for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime, and
	(c) in order to comply with an obligation of the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty's Government, under an international or other agreement relating to the movement of persons, goods or services.
	(3) This subsection applies to a disclosure if—
	(a) it is made to a body which has responsibility for the regulation of a profession,
	(b) it relates to misconduct on the part of a member of the profession, and
	(c) the misconduct relates to a function of the Revenue and Customs.
	(4) This subsection applies to a disclosure if—
	(a) it is made to a constable, and
	(b) either—
	(i) the constable is exercising functions which relate to the movement of persons or goods into or out of the United Kingdom, or
	(ii) the disclosure is made for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime.
	(5) This subsection applies to a disclosure if it is made—
	(a) to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and
	(b) for a purpose connected with its functions under section 2(2) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) (criminal intelligence).
	(6) This subsection applies to a disclosure if it is made—
	(a) to a person exercising public functions in relation to public safety or public health, and
	(b) for the purposes of those functions.
	(7) This subsection applies to a disclosure if it—
	(a) is made to the Police Information Technology Organisation for the purpose of enabling information to be entered in a computerised database, and
	(b) relates to—
	(i) a person suspected of an offence,
	(ii) a person arrested for an offence,
	(iii) the results of an investigation, or
	(iv) anything seized.
	(8) Regulations under subsection (1)(b)(ii)—
	(a) may specify a kind of disclosure only if the Treasury are satisfied that it relates to—
	(i) national security,
	(ii) public safety,
	(iii) public health, or
	(iv) the prevention or detection of crime;
	(b) may make provision limiting or restricting the disclosures that may be made in reliance on the regulations; and that provision may, in particular, operate by reference to—
	(i) the nature of information,
	(ii) the person or class of person to whom the disclosure is made,
	(iii) the person or class of person by whom the disclosure is made,
	(iv) any other factor, or
	(v) a combination of factors;
	(c) shall be made by statutory instrument;
	(d) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(9) Information disclosed in reliance on this section may not be further disclosed without the consent of the Commissioners (which may be general or specific); (but the Commissioners shall be taken to have consented to further disclosure by use of the computerised database of information disclosed by virtue of subsection (7))."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 not moved.]
	Clause 21 [Procedure for orders under Section 20]:

Lord Goldsmith: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Leave out Clause 21.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 21:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
	(1) The Information Commissioner shall keep under review the exercise and performance of the powers and duties conferred or imposed by or under sections 17 to 24 by the persons on whom they are conferred or imposed.
	(2) It shall be the duty of those persons on whom powers and duties are conferred or imposed by or under sections 17 to 24 to provide the Information Commissioner with all such information as he may require for carrying out of his duties as mentioned in subsection (1).
	(3) The Treasury, after consultation with the Information Commissioner, shall provide the Commissioner with such resources as are necessary for the discharge of his duties under this section.
	(4) After the first full year of operation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and as he feels necessary thereafter, the Information Commissioner must lay before Parliament a report about the carrying out of his duties under subsection (1)."

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, your Lordships will have noted that I have softened my original stance on this issue. Whereas previously I sought an obligation on the Information Commissioner to make an annual report on the operation of HMRC's disclosure regime, I have re-drafted the new clause to confine it to a report on the first full year of operation.
	As I have already made clear, I am only too well aware that the Data Protection Act grants an appropriate power to the Information Commissioner to conduct a review should he deem it necessary. Indeed, as revealed by the letter from the Paymaster General to the chairman of the JCHR, that continues to form the substance of the justification given by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for resisting the amendment. Like the JCHR, I hold to the view that, given the importance of taxpayer confidentiality to the integrity of the tax base, it is appropriate that a report on the first full year of HMRC's operation should be obligatory rather than discretionary.
	A further motivation for the new clause is the way in which the role and functions of the Information Commissioner have expanded in recent years. Inevitably, exercise of the discretionary power under the DPA to report on HMRC will be subject to any resource and budgetary constraints that that increased—and increasing—workload places on the Information Commissioner. Accordingly, reliance on that route to proper oversight has about it the character of willing the ends but not the means. That being so the new clause addresses that at proposed new subsection (3) by requiring that adequate resources be made available. I beg to move.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, we have discussed these issues in Grand Committee. As the noble Earl knows, I remain unconvinced of the need to add further to the Bill in this area, but I will say something more on the record, which I hope will give him comfort.
	External scrutiny of the department and its processes already exists. As the noble Earl knows, I believe that the scrutiny is robust and adequate to the task. The department will be subject to investigation by the Adjudicator, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury Committee in another place, the courts and, of course, the Information Commissioner, who has extensive investigative and reporting powers.
	There will also be external scrutiny of the conduct of HMRC officers by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Although some of those bodies scrutinise only complaints from members of the public, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury Committee and the Information Commissioner can investigate simply because they choose to do so, even where no particular complaint has been made.
	The Information Commissioner already has a good relationship with the departments; I drew attention to that previously. I re-emphasise just one point: he has never reported that either department has misused the information that it holds.
	Those are the reasons for not wanting to go further in the Bill, but I can go a step further in meeting the concerns raised by the noble Earl. The arrangements for delegation that will apply to HMRC will enable a single commissioner to take on the important role of co-ordinating, checking and ensuring compliance with the Data Protection Act. That will provide, as I have indicated in correspondence, a clear nominated contact who will be responsible for dealing with the Information Commissioner on relevant matters. It will ensure that the Information Commissioner, in turn, has a direct route through to HMRC at the highest level, should he need to raise matters with it. So, they should be able in that way to discuss any developments or concerns with a knowledgeable individual with the ability to make quick decisions and act with authority.
	I am sure also that the debate that has taken place here will not escape the attention of the Information Commissioner, who has the power to take such steps as he thinks appropriate, having regard to the circumstances. Although I cannot, on this occasion, go as far as the noble Earl would like, I hope that the identification of a nominated commissioner will reassure him that the new department will continue to take its obligations seriously, every bit as seriously as its predecessor departments have done. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that, together with the scrutiny in the legal and administrative safeguards that will apply to HMRC which I have identified, that is an appropriate framework and will not, as, I think, he indicated, press his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response and, in particular, for the reassurances that he offered.
	There was one point in particular that I had hoped he would address from the Dispatch Box: recognition by the Government that it would be beyond credibility for the Information Commissioner not to seek an early review of the operation of HMRC. The noble and learned Lord gave us that suspicion, which was extraordinarily helpful. I also drew great comfort from what was said about the principle of having a nominated commissioner to deal with compliance with the HRA and the DPA.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not want the noble Earl to get a false impression in any way. It will be for the Information Commissioner to decide whether he needs to undertake some particular form of review. I have indicated that the procedures are in place for him to talk to a nominated commissioner, so that he can form that view for himself. I would not like to be taken as having offered any assurance that that is what he will do. The Information Commissioner is—rightly—his own man.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I take that point absolutely. The point that I was cack-handedly trying to convey was that it is the expectation of all of us that the Information Commissioner in his independent capacity will do so. It would be beyond credibility for him not to want to take a look at the first year or two of the operation of HMRC. I may have expressed it rather cack-handedly, but I did not infer that in any sense the noble and learned Lord was giving a cast-iron guarantee that he spoke on behalf of the Information Commissioner. I understand that point.
	I hope that I am not repeating myself if I say that I was also grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord espouse the principle that there should be a nominated commissioner for HRA and DPA compliance. That is extremely useful and offers me great comfort.
	I thank the noble and learned Lord for the reassurances that he has given. In the circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 22:
	After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
	"REPORT ON HER MAJESTY'S COMMISSIONERS OF REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
	(1) On or before the second anniversary of the coming into force of this Act, in accordance with section 53(1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall appoint a person or persons (referred to in this section as "the assessor") to report on the matters set out in subsection (2).
	(2) A report under subsection (1) shall deal with the creation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (referred to in this section as "the integration") and shall include any matters considered by the assessor to be relevant to an assessment of the integration in terms of its costs, its benefits and its impact on taxpayers.
	(3) A report under subsection (1) shall not include any assessment of—
	(a) the annual performance of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs in discharging their responsibilities as tax administrators and collectors except in so far as these have been affected by the integration;
	(b) any matter (whether relating to value for money or otherwise) that has been reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	(4) A report under subsection (1) shall not be required to deal with any matter which the assessor believes has been adequately dealt with in any document which has been issued by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and which is publicly available.
	(5) A report under subsection (1) shall be prepared annually for five years from the date referred to in that subsection and shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and published.
	(6) The first report under subsection (1) shall be completed within 12 months of the date referred to in that subsection."

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be glad that we have reached the last amendment at Third Reading. We debated different versions of the amendment in Grand Committee and on Report. On Report, the noble and learned Lord made some important statements in response to the issues raised by the amendment, which seeks a report on the integration of HMRC. In particular, we welcomed what the noble and learned Lord said on Report about the reports that would be made by HMRC in the first year or so of its operation.
	The amendment before us today is different in two important respects from the one that we debated earlier. First, we have eliminated the reference to the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office that upset the noble and learned Lord on Report. I did not wish to upset him, so I removed the reference from this amendment. I am sure that the performance of the RCPO should be kept under review, but I am equally sure that another mechanism should be found.
	The second respect in which the amendment differs is that it is drafted now to sweep up those matters that are not dealt with in other public documents. We believe that what the Minister said on Report about the content of the early reports by HMRC will go a long way towards meeting our concerns. But those reports may not adequately deal with all of the issues that are relevant to an assessment of the integration in terms of its costs, its benefits and its impact on taxpayers.
	I have been particularly concerned that the reports will run out after about 18 months. Some of the issues that are relevant to how well the integration has worked will not become clear very early. In particular, the impact on tax yield would not be clear for some time, nor, almost certainly, would the impact on taxpayers, given the rather incremental approach to the way in which the operations of HMRC will change.
	The noble and learned Lord may say, as he said on Report, that as time goes on the impact of the integration will be mixed up in some ways with other measures. I accept that, but it seems to me that it is a basic principle of good management that procedures should be put in place to differentiate the impact of different policies. If they are all to be muddled together, after a year or so no policy could ever be evaluated on an ex post basis. It is a principle of good government that policies are capable of being evaluated on an ex post basis.
	That is particularly the case with the creation of HMRC. We have argued throughout the Bill that the policy was not well justified at the outset. We did not oppose the policy, but we made the point that the costs of integration were not well explained, the risks were not well identified and, in particular, the benefits in terms of increased yield were barely mentioned, let alone quantified.
	So our concerns are that proper information is put routinely into the public domain, in particular after the first year, which is where the real test of the impact of integration can be determined. The amendment—because it focuses only on information that is not otherwise publicly available—could result in absolutely no additional information being put in the public domain. That would be splendid because it would mean that HMRC was doing a splendid job in being open and transparent about the effect of the integration. But just in case it does not do so, I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for being unavoidably detained elsewhere at the start of this debate. I should like to begin by echoing the comments made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. We thank the noble and learned Lord and the Bill team for responding in such a positive manner to the amendments that were carried at an earlier stage. As a result, it is a better Bill.
	As regards this amendment, we support the attempts made by the noble Baroness to obtain a satisfactory review of the progress of the merger, given its importance and the importance attached to it by the Government and external observers. We support the efforts that the noble Baroness has made to achieve that.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his contribution to the debate. We entirely understand that he was unable to be present earlier; I understand that it was nothing to do with the events of this morning.
	I want briefly to respond to the noble Baroness, who I think knows my principal objection to what has been described at one stage as a risk of "reportitis". I want to put on record a further elaboration of what I said on Report about the commitment to cover aspects of the performance of the new department in the annual and spring reports. I am happy to confirm that there will be continuing reports on HMRC's performance on the key areas of yield, on reducing the compliance gap and the impact on taxpayers. These are the very items which are covered in HMRC's public service agreement targets.
	In addition, a special chapter in the annual and spring reports will report on specific post-implementation issues. I said previously that this would cover 2005–06. I can commit to it being carried forward at least into 2007 as well, which is an increase on what was first said. However, I emphasise again the words, "and, where appropriate, subsequently". This will provide for progress made in the medium term as well as more immediate early progress following the creation of the new department.
	I remain in a different place from the noble Baroness when it comes to considering at what point it will no longer be productive to try to separate out particular aspects of performance from the overall performance of the department, but we do not need to determine that debate now. It will be for the Commissioners as they go forward, bearing in mind what has been said in this debate, and what will be said no doubt in this House, in another place or in Select Committees as they look at the early reports, to consider the need for continuing reports to be brought forward. The Commissioners will decide how best to organise and set out their annual and spring reports, and I believe that a point will come when the concept of special chapters is no longer relevant. But perhaps we cannot predict precisely when that will be.
	I conclude by congratulating the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the determination with which they have pursued this point, which resulted in a very careful consideration by the department of an appropriate reporting mechanism and the development of ideas for the reports. They will improve on the overall structure for what we have in mind. I think that we can all be satisfied that this now represents a full scheme of reporting to Parliament over the next few years, and perhaps beyond, of this extremely important department on its very important work for the British economy and the British public.
	On that basis, I hope that this final amendment will not be pressed.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said in response to the amendment. Of course, noble Lords on these Benches always want the whole loaf, but I think that this time we have been offered a little more than half a loaf, so I consider myself more than satisfied. He can rest assured that I shall be an eager reader of the annual, spring and autumn reports of HMRC. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, given the hour, I want to say simply that I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the consideration of this Bill. I have enjoyed my limited excursion into these matters, although it was not what I had anticipated when I first set out to take on the Bill. However, I believe that we send it back to another place with a number of improvements. I thank all those who have enabled that to take place, including the Bill team which, as the noble Baroness and others have said, has worked extremely hard to meet the concerns in a way that satisfies operational requirements.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Goldsmith.)

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I rise only to echo what the Minister has said. We welcome him to address Treasury matters on any future occasion.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 118 [Powers of designated and accredited persons]:

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 84, line 26, leave out subsections (3) to (6).

Lord Dholakia: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 124, 136 and 141 to 145. It concerns a matter on which we have received strong representation from the Police Federation.
	Since the introduction of community support officers there has been a worrying, yet entirely predictable, creep in their powers. The additional powers in the Bill will be the third extension of those given to CSOs since their introduction in July 2002. All these extensions have taken place in the absence of any empirical evidence as to the utility of the exercise of their existing powers or any evaluation of the effectiveness or efficiency of the service they are delivering.
	We were in support of the appointment of community support officers when it was first discussed but we oppose the additional powers which would be conferred on CSOs by Clause 118. This view is derived from focus group research conducted by the Police Federation into the experiences of police officers working with CSOs. The Government have no empirical evidence of the utility of the powers the CSOs already have. The Home Office evaluation of the use of powers to detain signally failed to measure utility despite being directed by the terms of reference to do so.
	We are very concerned about the power creep that is happening, with more and more powers for CSOs being tagged on to any convenient piece of legislation. While the Police Federation accepted that CSOs should be given the power to search following detention, the clause goes far further, effectively giving them the power to stop and search for alcohol and tobacco and, by extension, for drugs. CSOs should not get involved in potentially highly confrontational situations by warning people who may well carry weapons to protect themselves, their drugs or the money they are carrying. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the basis upon which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, speaks in support of the amendments, but we do not agree with him. Let me explain why.
	Community support officers have been in place for a little over two years and in that time they have proved extremely successful as an additional resource in improving the visibility of the police and tackling the anti-social behaviour that blights communities. Precisely because of their more limited role, training and powers they are not subject to the degree of abstraction to other duties that their more highly trained constable colleagues must face.
	Increasingly, the agenda on neighbourhood policing is shifting towards a team-based approach that deploys together police officers, CSOs and sometimes neighbourhood wardens. We believe that we have made the case—and I am happy to make it again—for some additional powers to be designated on CSOs at the discretion, I emphasise, of chief constables to deal with the routine situations that they face regularly on the streets.
	The interim report of the national evaluation of community support officers published in December of last year, alongside other evaluations, such as the University of Leeds' study Patrolling with a Purpose published in October 2004, all point to the success and popularity of CSOs. To quote just a few examples: in Northumbria, satisfaction with the police rose by 32 per cent in areas where CSOs patrol; in Westminster, 86 per cent of respondents to a public survey had seen a CSO; and in Leeds, personal robbery fell by 47 per cent in areas in which CSOs patrol.
	So their introduction has been key to the introduction of neighbourhood policing currently gathering pace, allowing communities sustained contact with dedicated local policing teams. It has not—as is often alleged—threatened the role of the constable. We have delivered 13,000 more police officers since 1997 and have introduced measures to tackle bureaucracy and get police officers on to the frontline.
	We are seeking to make a few changes to the existing powers of CSOs to give chief constables the flexibility to choose from a wider menu of powers according to local need. The provisions are not designed to blur the distinctions between police officers and community support officers. Instead, the new powers make practical changes to allow CSOs to deal more effectively with the type of situations they routinely face as part of their high visibility patrolling role. For example, CSOs already have the power to deal with beggars who behave in an anti-social manner but have no specific power to deal with passive beggars. The Bill makes that change, allowing CSOs to deal with all types of begging.
	The new powers are also carefully limited and designed to keep CSOs out of confrontational situations. For example, they will be enabled to enter off-licences to investigate licensing offences but in pubs, where the risks are higher, CSOs will be required to enter only in the company of a constable.
	Similarly, the Bill gives CSOs the power to seize drugs in situations where they come across them. It would not make sense for a CSO to find some cannabis on a young person when searching for alcohol or tobacco but to be powerless to remove it. Specifically, the Bill does not enable CSOs to go searching for drugs proactively, as that is a power suitable only for sworn constables. The new powers for CSOs in the Bill are there to give them practical help in tackling anti-social behaviour but have been crafted in such a way as to recognise the boundaries of the CSO role. We understand absolutely why the noble Lord wishes to see a clear distinction between community support officers and constables, and we agree with him.
	Striking Clause 118 from the Bill or removing paragraphs from Schedules 8 and 9 would deprive chief constables of the opportunity to designate CSOs, as well as other designated staff and accredited persons, with a useful range of powers. We believe that the new powers for CSOs will add considerably to their effectiveness in our communities. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I know that this issue has taxed him and others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, which is why I have taken a little time to explain why we think that they need not be so concerned.

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for her explanation. This is a matter of serious concern to the Police Federation, and I think that that is where the explanation is due. I hope that its members will be able to read the Minister's explanation in Hansard tomorrow. If they come back, the Home Office may have a tougher job than I have here. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 118 agreed to.
	Schedule 8 [Powers of designated and accredited persons]:
	[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 125:
	Page 190, line 16, at end insert—
	"After paragraph 1 insert—
	:TITLE3:"Power to require name and address
	1A (1) This paragraph applies if a designation applies it to any person.
	(2) Such a designation may specify that, in relation to that person, the application of sub-paragraph (3) is confined to one or more only (and not to all) relevant offences or relevant licensing offences, being in each case specified in the designation.
	(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), where that person has reason to believe that another person has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area, or a relevant licensing offence (whether or not in the relevant police area), he may require that other person to give him his name and address.
	(4) The power to impose a requirement under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to an offence under a relevant byelaw is exercisable only in a place to which the byelaw relates.
	(5) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (3) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(6) In its application to an offence which is an offence by reference to which a notice may be given to a person in exercise of the power mentioned in paragraph 1(2)(aa), sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall have effect as if for the words "has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area" there were substituted "in the relevant police area has committed a relevant offence".
	(7) In this paragraph, "relevant offence", "relevant licensing offence" and "relevant byelaw" have the meaning given in paragraph 2 (reading accordingly the references to "this paragraph" in paragraph 2(6)).""

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We think it is important that chief constables should be able to choose whether or not CSOs should have the power to detain for 30 minutes according to their policing strategy for the local area. Prior to the commencement of the power of detention in all forces, chief constables outside the six pilot areas designated their CSOs with the power to require name and address without the power to detain attached. A number of chief constables do not wish to designate their CSOs with the power to detain, but find the power to require name and address useful on its own.
	The amendments ensure that, following the commencement of the detention power, chief constables can continue to designate the power to require name and address without also designating the power of detention. This gives chief constables the flexibility to tailor the powers of CSOs to the needs of the local area and, as such, I hope that this will be welcomed by Members on all sides of the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 126 to 135:
	Page 190, line 18, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
	"( ) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
	"(2) A designation may not apply this paragraph to any person unless a designation also applies paragraph 1A to him.""
	Page 190, line 27, after "(3)" insert—
	"(a) for "sub-paragraph (2)" substitute "paragraph 1A(3)",
	(b) "
	Page 190, leave out lines 34 to 36.
	Page 191, line 1, leave out "the designation" and insert "a designation under paragraph 1A"
	Page 191, line 2, leave out "sub-paragraph (2)" and insert "sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph"
	Page 191, line 14, leave out "(5)(b)" and insert "(5)—
	(a) omit paragraph (a),
	(b) in paragraph (b)"
	Page 192, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) Omit sub-paragraph (7).
	( ) At the end add—
	"(8) The application of any provision of this paragraph by paragraph 3(2), 3A(2) or 7A(8) has no effect unless a designation under this paragraph has applied this paragraph to the CSO in question."" .
	Page 192, line 47, at end insert—
	"In paragraph 3 (power to require name and address of person acting in anti-social manner), in sub-paragraph (2), for "sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph" substitute "paragraph 1A(3)"."
	Page 193, line 19, leave out "sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph" and insert "paragraph 1A(3)"
	Page 193, line 23, at end insert—
	"In paragraph 4 (power to use reasonable force to detain person)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), after "paragraph" insert "1A or",
	(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for "paragraph 2(2)" substitute "paragraph 1A(3)"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 137 to 140:
	Page 194, line 20, leave out "sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph" and insert "paragraph 1A(3)"
	Page 194, line 21, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "paragraph 2"
	Page 195, line 18, leave out "sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph" and insert "paragraph 1A(3)"
	Page 195, line 20, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "paragraph 2"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 141 to 144 not moved.]
	Schedule 8 agreed to.
	Schedule 9 [Additional powers and duties of designated persons]:
	[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
	Schedule 9 agreed to.
	Clauses 119 and 120 agreed to.
	Clause 121 [Harassment intended to deter lawful activities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 not moved.]
	Clause 121 agreed to.
	Clause 122 [Harassment etc. of a person in his home]:
	[Amendments Nos. 148 to 153 not moved.]
	Clause 122 agreed to.
	Clause 123 agreed to.
	Clause 142 [Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 153A:
	Page 103, line 23, at end insert—
	"but paragraph (b) does not include an act which is actionable on the ground only that it induces another person to break a contract with B."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Amendment No. 153A has the effect of narrowing the scope of the new Clause 142 by stating specifically that peaceful advocacy of economic actions against companies that are connected with animal research organisations will not trigger an offence. The amendment ensures that an offence can be triggered only by methods of persuasion that are themselves unlawful, which has always been our intention.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights observed in its seventh scrutiny report that Clause 142 was capable of capturing lawful protest actions and we are therefore taking this opportunity to ensure that the scope for the clause to be so used against such actions is removed. We believe that the right to make lawful representations is a cornerstone of democratic society. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I confess that several years ago I became chairman of the only committee since 1870 to advise Parliament on how Acts of Parliament should be drafted. In those days there was never any question of references to A, B, C and D, and so on, within the statutes. That is a habit that has been growing, and I implore the Government to drop it, for two reasons: first, because it departs from the usual use of our language and, secondly, because Acts of Parliament must be understood by all the people, and not all people will understand when those references to A, B, C and D and so on are introduced. I really feel that it is a habit that we should get away from.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course, I hear what the noble Lord says, and I give proper deference to his long experience. However, many people say that they find Bills drafted in this way easier to understand, particularly the layman, who may not be as conversant as the noble Lord with the construction and interpretation of statutes. I hear what he says, but this seems to be a perfectly felicitous way in which to deal with the matter for the ordinary man and woman in the street.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 143 [Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation]:
	[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]

Baroness Turner of Camden: The Question is that Clause 143 stand part of the Bill. The contents have it. Is Amendment No. 155 formally moved?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I believe that we may now have a little problem, as we have now agreed the clause before the Minister had the opportunity formally to move her amendments. The Minister might by my intervention have been given time perhaps to recollect that fact. I would like to be of the greatest assistance, if there is any way in which we can undo what we have just done.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 155:
	Page 104, line 14, after "in" insert ", or who provides financial assistance to,"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There are two amendments that have the effect of extending the list of persons connected to animal research organisations contained in Clause 143, to include funders of research. Funders, including the Association of Medical Research Charities, have told us that they believe that they should have the same status in the new legislation as the customers, suppliers and employees of animal research organisations, as they have been targeted by unlawful action by extremists and feel that pain as equally as others who have been so subjected. A number of noble Lords made the case for such an amendment during Second Reading on 14 March, and we accept the case that funders and noble Lords have made. It is right that funders should have the same protection as other persons connected with animal research organisations.
	I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the reason why I hesitated was that the Deputy Chairman did say formally moved, which would have meant that the amendment would have gone through without my saying what I have just said. The temptation was there, but the noble Baroness was absolutely right to bring proceedings to a halt because this was a measure that the whole Chamber wanted to see in the Bill, and it gives us an opportunity to acknowledge, with a little pleasure, that it is now there. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I am sorry if I have lost touch, but are we still on Clause 143?

Noble Lords: Yes.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Just to clarify the matter, I was not trying to draw out the proceedings at all. The difficulty was that the Minister had moved the amendment only after we had passed the clause, so she was not able to do it. However, in all matters we shall work closely together, and we have got the right result.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 156:
	Page 104, line 22, after "in" insert ", or who provides financial assistance to,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 143, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 144 to 146 agreed to.
	Clause 124 [Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds]:
	[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
	Clause 124 negatived.
	[Amendments Nos. 158 to 162 not moved.]
	Schedule 10 [Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds]:
	[Amendments Nos. 163 to 180 not moved.]
	Schedule 10 negatived.
	Clause 125 [Offence of trespassing on designated site]:
	[Amendments Nos. 181 to 189 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 125 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Haworth: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 125 stand part of the Bill. I am very concerned that this clause, which creates a new criminal offence of trespass in a designated area, is likely to be passed in this House tonight—indeed, I think that is fairly certain—and be enacted in statute yet it has not been debated at all in either House of Parliament. I took the trouble to check what occurred in the other place. There was no discussion of the measure in Committee or on Report, yet this clause creates a new criminal offence. It could be regarded as an encroachment upon our civil liberties. It is at least incumbent on the Minister to justify the reason for this clause appearing in this Bill at all.
	It was suggested on Second Reading in your Lordships' House that possibly the sweepings from the Home Secretary's cupboard had somehow found their way into this Bill. There was a discussion about whether that was a gallimaufry or whether it was a portmanteau. Either way, the suggestion was made by other noble Lords that the clauses—because Clauses 126, 127 and 128 also relate to this—have appeared as if by magic, and yet they are gravely in danger of being enacted without any parliamentary scrutiny whatever.
	I am very well aware that in making my first intervention ever in your Lordships' House on the scrutiny of legislation I have picked a spectacularly bad time; the day that the general election is called, when there is clear agreement between the major parties in this House to hurry through this Bill. I sense impatience in the Chamber tonight to proceed with some expedition, but I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the justification for taking those powers, so that it is on the record in this House and for the public outside.
	A number of organisations with which I am connected have raised their concerns, which were expressed briefly in the Second Reading debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. The Minister did reply to her, but it was in the nature of a two-sentence reply that merely said that this had been recommended by some committee. I hope that a fuller explanation can be offered tonight.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Lord has no reason to apologise for delaying the Committee on this important matter, which I referred to, albeit briefly, in my Second Reading speech. That brevity does not reflect any lack of concern. I too have received briefings not only from the Ramblers' Association but from the Open Spaces Society. I sympathise fully with the Ramblers' Association in its first comment that it had not anticipated by looking at the title of the Bill, either short or long, that there would be anything in the Bill that would directly affect them, and so it was at a late stage that it cottoned on to the implications of the clauses.
	Having had discussions on this matter with the Government, it is my belief that the Government have no intention at all of penalising what one would consider to be the rambler who enjoys peaceful exercise in the countryside. The noble Lord is the right person to have raised the question of clause stand part. I took the opportunity to look at his maiden speech, and I now realise his expertise as a mountaineer, one of the few that I have ever seen. On a modest scale I also enjoy walking; I do so regularly on Crown land where I pay to park and use the privileges. I am also aware that if I sought to leave that particular Crown land to go onto other land where I am not supposed to go at present—or indeed after the Bill goes through—there would not be any notices to let me know that I was going into the wrong area.
	The clauses have been brought forward for the right reasons, and the noble Lord is right to invite the Minister to explain the purposes behind them. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to indicate to the Committee the kind of sites that the Government anticipate will be covered by this new criminal trespass. I am sure that none of us want to be in the situation where the normal enjoyment of the countryside would be prevented by the provisions, and I do not believe that that will be the result.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her correct outline of the Government's position. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know that I have written in response to a proper concern expressed by the Ramblers' Association about the Government's intention. I reassure my noble friend that although this matter has been dealt with late in tonight's deliberations, that is not because of any lack of care.
	It may assist my noble friend and other Members of the Committee if I say, briefly, that Clauses 125 to 128 should be seen in their proper context. They respond to the Armstrong report of July 2003, following Aaron Barschak's intrusion at Windsor Castle on 21 June 2003. That report recommended that an offence of criminal trespass be created. That was supported by the Security Commission inquiry report of May 2004, which was conducted following revelations of Ryan Parry's activities at Buckingham Palace late in 2003. I am sure that the Committee remembers the incursions into our Palace of Westminster last year.
	That is the background against which the provisions should be seen. I am aware that concern has been expressed that the powers are too wide-ranging and could be used to designate large areas of Crown land to which the public have access. I take this opportunity to reassure the Committee, including my noble friend, that that is categorically not our intention. The offence created under Clause 125 will be limited to a small number of sites which will be designated by order under subsection (2). In making designations under the powers, the Secretary of State will be mindful of the need to provide a proportionate response to the potential for intrusion at a small number of sensitive sites, such as Buckingham Palace, Parliament and elsewhere.
	It is very unlikely that members of the public will be denied access to any land which they currently enjoy. I have responded to my noble friend Lord Judd, who raised the issue in terms of trespass on behalf of the Ramblers' Association. I wrote to him on 14 March and am happy to place a copy of that letter in the Library. I had understood that the Ramblers' Association had been provided with the information in the letter.
	I commend my noble friend Lord Haworth if this is his first incursion into our deliberations on a Bill. I hope that it has not put him off, and we will welcome him even more warmly on all other occasions.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will the orders be debatable or negative?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I had rather assumed that the orders would be negative, because all that they would do is identify the specific sites deserving of certain protection. When we debated the issues in 2003-04, Members of this House properly expressed great concern—I particularly remember the noble Lord, Lord Renton, doing so—that we were not doing enough to make sure that the sites were properly protected. The provisions are to make sure that particularly sensitive sites get the protection that they merit. That is the limit, so a negative resolution would be the proper way to determine that the sites were the ones that had been so identified.

Lord Haworth: I am grateful to the Minister for the elaboration that she has given, and I do not wish to press my point any further.

Clause 125 agreed to.
	Clauses 126 and 127 agreed to.
	Clause 128 [Designated sites: access]:
	[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved.]
	Clause 128 agreed to.
	Clause 129 [Demonstrating without authorisation in designated area]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 192:
	Page 92, line 41, leave out "for the purposes of this section" and insert "in a public place in the designated area"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Government Amendments Nos. 192, 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201 and 248 respond to the concerns expressed about the requirement to give at least six days' notice of any demonstration. The Government recognise that there should be provision for a shorter notice period of 24 hours in exceptional circumstances. For example, a demonstration may be organised as a response to an event which could not be foreseen. Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seek to remove any requirement on the organisers of demonstrations to give any notice of their intentions to the commissioner.
	The purpose of these provisions is to allow the commissioner to consider the circumstances of a demonstration and its likely effect on the work of Parliament and the security of the area around it. He can then set conditions which are appropriate and proportionate. The commissioner must be able to do this in advance. The Government have recognised that there may be occasions when demonstrations are organised as a response to events which could not be foreseen. We have shortened the notice period to 24 hours in exceptional circumstances, but we do not believe that we should remove the notice period completely.
	Regarding Amendment No. 198, which replaces,
	"disruption to the life of the community"
	with,
	"serious disruption to the life of the community",
	we must be able to ensure that those who work around Parliament are able to carry on their business without disruption and that the commissioner is able to place conditions on demonstrations to prevent this disruption. The Government believe that serious disruption is too high a threshold for demonstrations around Parliament and, given the importance of this area, the police need to have the ability to control all disruptive demonstrations.
	Government Amendment No. 201 allows the Metropolitan Police to give authorisation for a demonstration by fax or e-mail if organisers agree. This is particularly relevant if an organiser is unable to give six days notice for the demonstration. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, opposes the whole of Clause 134. This clause follows the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which ban the use of loudhailers in the streets at night. The new clauses ban the use of loudhailers in the vicinity of Parliament at any time except for certain specified purposes, such as in an emergency.
	The Government included these provisions to reduce the disruption which loudhailers cause to the work of Parliament. This issue was raised in the Procedure Committee in the other place, which in its report on Sessional Orders and resolutions recommended legislation on the use of loudhailers. The work of Parliament must be able to continue. Noise from loudhailers is particularly disruptive and the Government believe that those who demonstrate around Parliament are able to make their views known without resorting to loudhailers.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 seek to reduce the maximum extent of the designated area to which the controls on demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament apply. We are aware of concerns about the designated area taking in Trafalgar Square, and the House may be assured that, in exercising the order-making power in Clause 135, we will ensure that Trafalgar Square is excluded. Those are the two areas that both Benches opposite saw as the main thrust of concern. As a result, demonstrations could continue there without the need for prior notification from the Commissioner. I hope that that meets the noble Lord's concern on this point. I would love to see him smile. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I shall certainly smile with that small mercy from the Minister, which, in particular, excludes Trafalgar Square from the demonstration provisions. I should remind her that I never thought that I would see the day—given that I used to march outside Parliament in my younger days, as did many members of her own party—that new Labour would actually prevent people from demonstrating in the square outside this place.
	I shall express my concerns about the severe restriction on peaceful protest proposed by these clauses. In the light of the protection that has been given to political speech in Article 10 of the convention, we are particularly concerned at measures that seek to inhibit public protest on the doorstep of parliamentary democracy. It is an unpleasant irony that, should this provision become law, freedom of expression will be most at risk in the one area where it should be most protected.
	Under existing legislation, the police may place conditions on processions if they reasonably believe that the purpose of the organisers is to intimidate or if the procession may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. We therefore question whether these further restrictions are necessary to achieve any legitimate aim. In fact, we are unclear as to the aim of the provision. If it is to regulate static assemblies, as opposed to processions, by allowing the police to impose conditions in the interests of public safety and so on, we believe that that could be achieved in a more proportionate manner.
	There are a number of issues here. In relation to Amendments Nos. 193 and 194, we appreciate the move made by the Government from six days to 24 hours, but that still does not allow for continuous protest in the vicinity of Parliament. Business in Parliament can change very quickly and, in the event, there may not be 24 hours in which it is reasonably practical for someone to notify the Commissioner.
	With regard to Amendments Nos. 195 and 198, we believe that the Commissioner should not be able to impose conditions on demonstrations on the grounds of disruption to the life of the community unless the disruption is serious. Any large-scale demonstration will almost inevitably cause some disruption. We are concerned that, without the amendment, the legislation will permit disproportionate restrictions on protests.
	We oppose the Question that Clause 134 stand part because we believe that a total ban on the use of loudspeakers in a designated area is a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression. It is arbitrary as to the area and could have unintended consequences.
	With regard to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205, we believe that, if these provisions are retained, the area should be designated, and I believe that the Minister has now accepted that. However, if that is not practical, the maximum radius should be reduced generally to cover Parliament and its surroundings rather than large parts of central London. Now that Trafalgar Square is excluded, will Waterloo Station, which I suspect falls within the 1 kilometre range that we were talking about, also be excluded? For that reason, we propose that the centre of the area should be Parliament itself rather than Parliament Square. Those are our concerns and I hope that, by tomorrow, the Minister will see fit to make some changes for the betterment of this clause.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall comment briefly on this group of amendments. I welcome, in particular, the commitment given by the Government with regard to Trafalgar Square. I think that that is a proper response to the debate that was held in another place and to the concerns expressed there.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is absolutely right in stressing how important it is that British citizens should have the right to make their views known at the very doors of Parliament. The Front Bench view is that the Government have met our concerns about the original proposals by the amendments that they have tabled today and that therefore they are still enabling proper demonstration to be made.
	I have certainly been reminded by organisations such as Global Women's Strike that there is a vital need for them to have the right to come to Parliament Square—indeed, they would say to use loudhailers as well. They remind me that, on occasion, they have lobbied Members of another place by post and have not received a single response. Therefore, they feel that they can make themselves heard only in a physical way by coming here with a loudhailer, and I can well understand that view.
	As this is free-vote territory, I am allowed as a Front-Bencher to say that I have always felt it an important right for people to ensure that I hear what they say. Even if I do not agree with what they say, I shall certainly try to go on listening as long as I have breath to do so—not that one needs breath to listen.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am glad that the Government have brought forward this amendment, but we have to be very careful, particularly now, that we do not send the wrong message to the voters outside. We are asking them to vote in a general election to send people to Parliament. Then we are saying to them, "Okay, you have elected us now, don't bother to turn up to see us in great numbers". I think that is such a pity.
	For hundreds of years we have been able to demonstrate in front of Parliament and speak to the people who govern us, and now, because one fellow made a nuisance of himself for a few months, we are restricting the rights of the general population, the general voters. I believe it is a great pity, despite what the Government have done which is to be welcomed, to send a message to the people that restrictions on Parliament are to be tightened yet again.
	When I was elected to Parliament in 1970 everyone could come through the doors of this place and the House of Commons without let or hindrance. That has changed to the extent that they have to be searched, they have to wear badges, and now we are saying that they have to give notice if more than a handful of people want to come to demonstrate and tell us what they think.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the importance of being able to protest. These provisions specifically allow that still to take place. The Commissioner must allow demonstrations. This is simply an opportunity to impose conditions.
	We are not preventing demonstrations; we are not preventing peaceful process. All that is still possible. We are not inhibiting the public's ability freely to express their views. We all enjoy the benefit of hearing them and hearing them very clearly. We have put some reasonable, proportionate limits on the exercise of that quite proper right. I hope that nothing that we put in this Bill will in any way inhibit proper demonstrations so that the voice of the people of this country can be heard. I am glad that the young noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who was traipsing the streets in this regard, has found his proper place on the Benches of the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 130 [Notice of demonstrations in designated area]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 193:
	Page 93, leave out line 17 and insert—
	"(1A) The notice must be given—
	(a) if reasonably practicable, not less than 6 clear days before the day on which the demonstration is to start, or
	(b) if that is not reasonably practicable, then as soon as it is, and in any event not less than 24 hours before the time the demonstration is to start."
	[Amendment No. 194, as an amendment to Amendment No. 193, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 193 agreed to.
	Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 131 [Authorisation of demonstrations in designated area]:
	[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:
	Page 93, line 36, leave out from "district" to end of line 37 and insert "by the time specified in section 130(1A)."
	Page 93, line 38, at end insert "to which the notice relates"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 199 to 201:
	Page 94, line 35, leave out "divergence from the particulars" and insert "failure to comply"
	Page 94, line 36, leave out "failure to comply" and insert "divergence from the particulars"
	Page 94, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) If the person to whom the notice required by subsection (6) is to be given has agreed, it may be sent to him by email or by facsimile transmission at the address or number notified by him for the purpose to the Commissioner (and a notice so sent is "in writing" for the purposes of that subsection)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 132 to 134 agreed to.

Lord Harris of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 202:
	After Clause 134, insert the following new clause—
	"PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN WEAPONS
	In section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (weapons subject to general prohibition) after subsection (1A) insert—
	"(1B) A person commits an offence if, without lawful object or reasonable excuse or the permission of the Secretary of State, he has in his possession in any public place, or purchases or acquires or imports into the United Kingdom, or manufactures, sells or transfers any imitation firearm.""

Lord Harris of Haringey: In retrospect, moving this as an amendment after Clause 134 does not look entirely logical. However, since the purpose of Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 is simply to raise the issue in the hope of getting some assurances that further work will be done on the matter by the Government, I am not too worried about their putative placing in the legislation.
	Amendment No. 202 would prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of imitation firearms and Amendment No. 203 would do the same for airguns. The purpose of the amendments is that although the Government have substantially restricted people carrying imitation weapons and the sale of airguns, I do not believe that in either case enough has been done.
	On imitation weapons, apart from the fact that many of them can be converted into real and very dangerous weapons, there is the real problem that people carrying an imitation firearm, if it looks like a real firearm, will require the deployment of armed police. There may then be an incident in which someone is shot and it then turns out the gun was a toy or an imitation weapon. The consequences are very serious in every way. That clearly is unfortunate.
	If you encourage that, it adds to a situation in which you are glorifying weapons. So I would very much like to see us move on that point, particularly as crimes involving imitation guns are increasing and rose by 18 per cent in the past year. Indeed, I understand that if you were to extract offences involving imitation firearms from the figures for gun crime, you would find that gun crime in this country had gone down. So I certainly believe that we should be making progress on that issue.
	On airguns, in my speech at Second Reading I referred to the tragic case of Andrew Morton. He was a two year-old child from Easterhouse in Glasgow, who was shot in the head with an airgun pellet and subsequently died. In case people feel that that was an isolated incident, a few days before the South Wales Echo reported a situation in which a sniper targeted four bus passengers, including two children, waiting at a bus stop in Pentrebane. When the police arrived they were seen to confiscate an air rifle but witnesses were surprised that no one was arrested.
	The day before the Sunderland Echo reported a case in which a six year-old boy almost blinded a 12 year-old girl with a shot from a ball-bearing gun. On the same day the Sheffield Today reported an incident in which a pensioner was shot in the head by a pellet fired from a ball-bearing gun as she walked home from a Sheffield bus stop.
	The reality is that whatever changes have already been made, too many of these weapons are available. They are too readily available and my belief is that the Government should take steps to make it much more difficult to buy, obtain and to use them. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: I am not too enthusiastic about Amendment No. 202, but I warmly endorse Amendment No. 203 as a result of personal experience. About 10 months ago my wife and I returned from the country to find that some yob had fired what looked like a .22 bullet through the ground floor window of our London house. Police later told us that it almost certainly came from a ball-bearing gun, but it undoubtedly caused just as much damage as any .22 bullet would.
	Weeks later we were still picking extremely sharp and painful shards of glass out of the carpets and the furniture—shards which had been driven fully 15 or 16 feet into the room. The ball-bearing gun was obviously fired, because they could not get into the garden, from a distance of 12 or 13 feet from the window. That is quite a range. So there is clearly nothing innocuous—as I confess I used to believe—about a ball-bearing gun. They are dangerous things and I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right to bring forward this amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government share my noble friend's concern about the misuse of imitation firearms and air weapons. We sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on his very distressing incident. We realise that such guns can be very damaging. There is already a range of controls to tackle their misuse, which we have recently strengthened. Last year we raised from 14 to 17 the age limit for owning air weapons and made it an offence to possess an imitation firearm or an air weapon, whether loaded or not, in public without lawful or reasonable excuse.
	My noble friend's amendments would further tackle the problem of misuse through prohibiting the possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale, transfer or importation of imitation firearms and air weapons—except the prohibition would not apply where a person had a lawful object or reasonable excuse for having one. That would not be effective in preventing irresponsible people obtaining those things. The sale of imitation firearms and air weapons is not limited to registered firearms dealers; they can be bought and sold by anyone, including privately. Imitations include harmless items such as children's toys, which are sold by general retailers. It would not be difficult for anyone to offer a reasonable excuse for buying an imitation or an air weapon, for example, by presenting themselves as a collector or target shooter, and few vendors could check a purchaser's stated reasons.
	As I have mentioned, it is already an offence to possess an imitation firearm or an air weapon in public without reasonable excuse. That means that part of what my noble friend's amendment seeks to achieve is already catered for. Whether any further controls are necessary, and what they should be, is best considered as part of the Government's current review of firearms law.
	We have consulted on how the controls might be improved, and we are considering the many views that we have received. That process provides the best means of deciding what measures would be most effective and proportionate in tackling the misuse of imitation and air weapons. I hope that that reassures my noble friend that the Government are actively addressing the problem. I hope that he will not press his amendments but I empathise with why he has made them. I reassure him that the Government are looking at the issue and have expressed concerned about it.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply and am pleased that these issues will be looked at as part of the review of firearms law. Although the restrictions that the Government have introduced on carrying such weapons in public are extremely welcome, we must now look at their more general availability and the fact that, once somebody has such a weapon or imitation weapon, the temptation to take it out and to use it is rather too great.
	I accept the arguments made about the difficulties of an amendment that refers to prohibiting the sale of such weapons unless there is a lawful object or reasonable excuse. I accept that that may be much too wide in all such instances. But I hope that, as part of the review, the Government will look at ways in which we can stifle the production, sale, manufacture and distribution both of air weapons, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has referred, and of imitation weapons, which, when unlawfully displayed in public, can lead to a situation in which firearms officers are deployed, potentially putting all sorts of people at risk as a consequence.
	I am grateful for the assurances that have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
	Clause 135 [The designated area]:
	[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
	Clause 135 agreed to.
	Clauses 136 and 137 agreed to.
	Clause 138 [Anti-social behaviour orders etc: reporting restrictions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 138 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Stern: Clause 138 changes the situation when youth courts are dealing with publicising an anti-social behaviour order. Currently, personal information on children subject to proceedings should be released only when there are exceptional circumstances. The clause reverses that position: publicity will be given unless exceptional circumstances prevent it.
	The Minister will know that all the main organisations that work with children would like to see this controversial provision dropped from the Bill. I shall mention just Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the National Children's Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Save the Children and Voice for the Child in Care. That is a formidable alliance with years of experience of and contribution to the care of children in this country. I am sure that it is a matter of great regret to the Minister, as it is to me, that the Government find themselves taking measures that are in total opposition to the views of those valuable and respected organisations and that no compromise has been possible.
	There are many arguments against the measure. I have considered the measure in conjunction with the Government's latest guidance on publicising the personal details, including photographs, of those who receive anti-social behaviour orders. I am afraid to say that I found it a chilling document.
	There is a human rights objection to the provision. It is against the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, by which the Government are bound. There are also ethical objections. It is a sad state of affairs when society wants children and young people from the poorest and most deprived families to become pariahs and the butt of community hatred, vigilantism and "shop-a-yob" newspaper coverage—all for matters that are not even criminal.
	I am as opposed to anti-social behaviour as, I am sure, is the Minister and as are the children's organisations that I mentioned. They spend much of their time working to ensure that children do not grow up anti-social. It is a major argument against the provision that it will make it likely that anti-social behaviour will increase. It will create a pariah group of young people who will wear their notoriety as a badge of honour, sever their ties with respectable society and join the street gangs that are, unfortunately, becoming more prevalent. Because of the Internet and its search engines, the effects of the provision on those young people and their families will last for many years. Once their names are known and can be typed in, their histories will be there for all to find out.
	On the grounds that it will commit an abuse of children's rights and is unethical and likely to be counter-productive in our efforts to reduce anti-social behaviour, I oppose the clause.

The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support my noble friend Lady Stern. I shall endeavour to be brief, but my first concern is that there was no debate on the clause in the other place. Although the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a question about that at Second Reading, the Minister made neither specific response to that question nor any reference to the issue during the Second Reading debate. We will now have curtailed scrutiny of the Bill.
	It is not particularly a party political matter; there is no great controversy among the parties about it. However, as we heard, those who work with children are very concerned. Yet, there will be only this evening's discussion and a brief discussion tomorrow, with no chance for correspondence with the Minister, no opportunity to reflect and no chance to consult the relevant organisations. That is my first concern.
	Secondly, today the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place reported on anti-social behaviour. It questioned Hazel Blears, the Minister of State. The report states:
	"We asked [her] whether the practice of naming and shaming could be justified in light of concerns of child safety. She told us that publicity was crucial for community confidence, and commented that 'if there are good reasons for not having publicity then the courts always have the power to impose reporting restrictions'. She also confirmed that there was no current research looking at the effects of publicity on those involved".
	I repeat:
	"She also confirmed that there was no current research looking at the effects of publicity on those involved".
	During the passage of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill two or three years ago, I pressed the Government repeatedly for research into the impact of that controversial measure on those children and families. To the best of my knowledge there has been no such research carried out by the Government. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Chan whether he would give a medicine to a child without knowing what the side effects would be on a vulnerable child. That is my second concern.
	Thirdly, today the Education and Skills Committee of the other place published a report on Every Child Matters. As the report states:
	"Every Child Matters is a comprehensive programme of reform for children's services".
	It continues:
	"Every Child Matters, although based in the Department for Education and Skills, requires co-ordination and joined-up working with other Government departments . . . In particular, the Youth Justice system and the immigration system currently operate in ways which can be seen to undermine the aims of Every Child Matters. These tensions need to be tackled at Ministerial level if the Government is to convince us that every child really does matter equally".
	The noble Baroness earlier referred to the problem of professionals working in silos. Perhaps she will explain the Government's programme to encourage co-operative working between agencies—education, health and criminal justice, for example. But how can those agencies have confidence to work as a team? To many people involved in health and social services, publishing the names of such vulnerable children—without even bothering to investigate the implications that such publication has for those children and families—is highly irresponsible and possibly highly detrimental to the welfare of those children.
	I quote further from the Select Committee's report on anti-social behaviour, which states:
	"However, we conclude that the Government's strategy is being undermined by different philosophies, methods and tactics amongst key players. In particular, we were disappointed to hear that some social services departments, local educational authorities, Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services, Youth Services and children's non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are often not fully committed to local [anti-social behaviour] strategies. The failure to attend meetings of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships is just one symptom of this. Yet many perpetrators of ASB, both young and adult, are also the very people with complex support needs and therefore with whom these organisations are already, or should be, working".
	That is highly regrettable.
	A psychiatrist with whom I spoke two weeks ago was treating a girl who, while undergoing treatment, had to move her home because her identity had been publicised widely in the neighbourhood. How can health professionals work closely with the criminal justice system if they have difficulty with whether the criminal justice system puts the interests of the child as a high priority?
	Rod Morgan, head of the Youth Justice Board, is responsible for the work of youth offending teams and the state of children in prisons. I have heard him recently expressing deep concern about the naming and shaming of children. If the argument for having publicity is to empower local communities so that they know something is being done, frankly, complainants should be told that something is being done as regards the incidents about which they have concerns.
	We have already heard today about the increased number of community officers working on the beat. They know the kids in their communities about whom action needs to be taken. They can be informed without necessarily releasing names and photographs to the press. It is then extremely difficult to work positively with either the children, their families or their carers.
	In conclusion, while I apologise for taking so long, it deeply concerns me that this important area will not receive the scrutiny it certainly deserves. First, as I said earlier, there has been only a brief debate on it, followed by a short discussion in this House. Secondly, there has been no research into the consequences of publishing such information about vulnerable young people and families, whatever they may have done, as the noble Baroness was good enough to recognise earlier, and I thank her for that. Thirdly, surely the close co-operation and work of agencies will be undermined if their values seem to be in such conflict with one another.
	I beg the Minister to think again about this clause and to consider bringing it back on another occasion when we have had time to reflect on a matter which affects some of the most vulnerable children and families in our society.

Lord Dholakia: It is always a delight to support the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the proposal is contrary to our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It will seriously impair the welfare of children and their opportunities for rehabilitation. That is the point I made in my speech at Second Reading. We are also concerned that it will not deter many children from anti-social acts as many will enjoy the notoriety, while for others their anti-social behaviour is a manifestation of mental health or other difficulties which cannot be solved in this way.
	We are strongly opposed to the proposal in this clause to reverse the presumption withholding from the public the identity of a child accused of breaching an ASBO. The current legislative presumption that a child subject to criminal proceedings should not be identified enshrines the principle set out in Article 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It provides that:
	"State parties recognize that the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society".
	Article 40 also states that:
	"State parties shall ensure that children alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law shall have the guarantee that their privacy will be fully respected at all stages of the proceedings".
	This provision therefore infringes the United Kingdom's obligations under international law. Publication of a conviction for breaching an ASBO can be seen as more prejudicial to a child than the publication of an ordinary conviction since it indicates that they are regarded as a menace to their society. Local media cover ASBO proceedings. We believe that this provision will seriously impair the welfare of children and their opportunities for rehabilitation.
	We have looked seriously at the issues surrounding naming and shaming which we consider to be counterproductive. In some cases, public identification and publicity can glorify bad behaviour and act as a badge of honour. Anecdotal reports from projects show that young people who have had their ASBO publicised have been stigmatised within the community. This impedes community relations and the young person's future job prospects. It can also impact on the whole family, including younger siblings. Equally, for those who do want to make a fresh start, for whom being caught and reprimanded has had an effect, the impact of negative publicity about them can only prolong their problems in engaging with their community more positively. People who may never have even known or met them will know them only as troublemakers.
	Let me quote the words of a parent of a young person on an ASBO:
	"I had to move out of one area to another because of the ASBO conditions. The leaflets stated where we had moved to. This didn't seem fair as the ASBO was given in a different area and we had moved for a fresh start".
	Recent figures from the Youth Justice Board show that breaches of ASBOs are resulting in a rise in those young people being sent to custody. Ten young people who have breached an ASBO are sentenced to custody every week. Children and young people are effectively being set up to fail in meeting the ASBO conditions imposed on them. When they do fail, the system finds them guilty of a criminal offence. Clause 138 then suggests that everyone needs to know about the failure—but to what end?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Although I am not in a position at this late stage in the Bill to be able to offer support to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, if she wishes to excise this clause from the Bill, I have a great regard for what she said. She has the disconcerting habit of speaking good sense all the time. It is quite off-putting.
	I certainly agree that there are great concerns about the clause. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was right to point out that this matter was not debated in another place. More than 40 per cent of the clauses were not debated. Some were merely repetitive and so it was not a matter of concern, but this area would have benefited from proper scrutiny.
	Like the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, I, too, welcome the fact that I have received briefing from the Children's Society which is as lucid as ever.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I have been a magistrate and I have chaired youth courts. I am aware of the need for sensitivity in sentencing young people and in dealing with any breaches of those sentences. I was brought up on the meat and drink of the fact that one did not publicise the young people involved in any proceedings in whatever capacity.
	I looked cautiously at the provisions when they came before us. I am much intrigued by the quote of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, from the report of the Select Committee in another place. I have not seen that report. Obviously I will now have to read it properly. It is true that it is too late, but I will read it.
	The noble Earl indicated that when the Minister in another place, Hazel Blears, gave evidence, she said that there would have to be good reasons for having no publicity. That concerns me because the Explanatory Notes give an assurance that the court will retain discretion to apply reporting restrictions. Furthermore, on page 100, line 9, the drafting of proposed new subsection (10E) requires that the court,
	"shall give its reasons for doing so".
	So we seem to be leaping from complete anonymity to reversing the burden of whether or not there should be publication. There is the assurance, "Do not worry, the court has discretion and it does not have to publicise", but suddenly, according to the Minister in another place, that discretion can be exercised only for good reasons.
	That then begs the question of what happens if a court determines that it is a good reason that young people shall not have their names published at all. Does that exercise of its discretion become an abuse of the discretion because one may not have a rule about how one exercises discretion? I remember many an old argument on that matter.
	Difficulties could arise out of this because who will catch the courts at it? Who will report on how often each court exercises its discretion? Who will judge whether the reasons given by a court are good reasons? Will it be the role of the CPS? Will it then take action—and, if so, what action—as a result? These are genuine concerns and it is disappointing that we are in a situation where it is so late that it is unrealistic for those concerns properly to be addressed.
	I also find it somewhat uncomfortable that we are penalising young persons by publishing their details, almost as a matter of right, when the Bill gives extensive protection and anonymity—and rightly so—to adults involved in very serious crime who are turning Queen's evidence and giving assistance. That is an inconsistency in our approach to dealing with criminals.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Members of the Committee will know that how we deal with young people is an area of law in which I take an acute personal interest. It is important to see these provisions in the context of all the others that inure to the benefit of children in terms of their protection. I refer to Sure Start projects, diversion projects and the work done by DCMS, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office. I refer also to the holistic approach encouraged by all parties and partners that work with and for children when it comes to drug intervention, substance misuse, parenting orders, local criminal justice boards, national criminal justice boards, crime and disorder reduction partnerships and the Youth Justice Board. All those concentrate on the support, diversion, rehabilitation and reorientation of children who are disadvantaged by living in dysfunctional homes or failing to meet developmental, educational and other milestones. That work is of the utmost importance.
	So, too, is dealing with anti-social and disruptive behaviour which is outwith the norm that the ordinary citizen, the ordinary community, should reasonably be expected to tolerate. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, feels the force of that, as do others, including the charities which have to deal with children in this framework. We are very much in the same place in this respect.
	I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about discretion. The important thing is that we have all put a huge amount of effort into trying to make sure that those professionals, including the lay and professional judiciary, who are entrusted with the care and determination of these issues in relation to children have the appropriate level of training, expertise and commitment to this area so that they well understand the balance that has to be struck. We commend the amount of work that has been put in by the Judicial Studies Board in the training that it is to undertake with not only the professional judiciary but the lay magistracy.
	The exercise of the discretion by the court remains. If the court feels that there are proper reasons that publicity should not be given, then such a course of action is at the court's instigation. That duty, which is also a burden, is not being taken away from the judge. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asks how we would monitor that. Each case turns on its facts; the noble Baroness will know from having sat as a magistrate that no two cases are identical. Where the court is entrusted with the exercise of discretion, it will have to say why it came to that view. We would expect all members of the judiciary, whether lay or professional, not to behave precipitously, irrationally or irregularly but to behave properly and give good reasons for the determinations they make. That is a safeguard in relation to how these matters will be dealt with.
	Currently a juvenile can breach an ASBO and that breach cannot be made known to the local community. That is because Sections 39 and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provide that a juvenile identity cannot be revealed in criminal proceedings. That would apply to the breach of an ASBO because it is a criminal offence. To allow such a position to continue would undermine the effectiveness of ASBOs and communities are entitled to know that if an ASBO is breached action will be taken. That can only be achieved if reporting of the offence is allowed. It is interesting that under these provisions the making of an ASBO could be publicised but the breach could not be. That would be a curious situation.
	I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, says about wearing these issues like a badge of honour. However, a great deal of concentrated time—which is not often talked about—has been put into behavioural contracts. On many occasions, behavioural contracts are much more effective for the sort of child who is at the very low end of offending behaviour. Also, although those contracts do not get publicity, I can assure noble Lords—I do not have the specific figures, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness—that there are very many more behavioural contracts than anti-social behaviour orders.
	We must accept—and this is an uncomfortable thing to accept—that there is a small cadre of children to whom these provisions will apply, but the court will have the ability to differentiate between those children who will continue to need the sort of protection that does not allow them to have a badge of honour and those to whom these provisions should properly be applied.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, rightly raised the issue of what further work should be done in relation to ensuring that these provisions are working well. The noble Earl will be aware that the joint Home Office, ACPO and Youth Justice Board guidance on anti-social behaviour orders and youth justice, which was published on 31 March, contains a reference to the need for all publicity of an anti-social behaviour order issued against a young person to be considered carefully—it should be both necessary and proportionate. Having said that, the Government are convinced that publicity of an ASBO breach is a highly effective tool that should be available to the courts for all ASBO cases, including breaches by under 18 year-olds.
	Regrettably, on many occasions, these children are very well known to residents where they live because the nature of the behaviour that they undertake has made them well known. It is important for there not to be rumour about these children about where they are supposed to be and what they are not supposed to be doing. The rumour and tittle-tattle that can go on in relation to these matters can be just as damaging—if not more so—than knowing precisely what parameters the court has set, to give people certainty. Of course, these issues must be dealt with in a proportionate and balanced way.
	I understand that there is a limited amount of time to respond to noble Lords on this issue tonight. I had the advantage of speaking to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, today at the open meeting that we held in relation to this Bill. I am sorry that many more people did not attend, but I would be very happy to write a more detailed response about what we are doing to support children, how we anticipate the partnership working and what sort of support there will be—there are intensive supervision programmes that can go hand in glove with an anti-social behaviour order. Orders can target not only behaviour but identify the help that children need to overcome some of these difficulties. I would be very happy to write in a more co-ordinated way to noble Lords in relation to this matter. I hope that I will be able to do so before we meet tomorrow, but that noble Lords will forgive me if I cannot quite manage it. I will do my very best. I invite noble Lords not to press this amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her lengthy response at this time of night, and I am sorry to try the patience of the Chamber a little further, but could she explain how sensible decisions can be made about publication of the information if one has done no research into the impact over several years of the publication and identification of these children on the children and their families? Does the Minister recognise that there is a definite lacuna here, if one is going to make sensible policy in this area in future?
	I look forward to the Minister's response to that point, or perhaps she would like to put a note about that in her letter of response for tomorrow.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will do that. I have indicated what we did on 31 March about the guidance. We shall be quite ready to review the guidance when the clause is brought into force. We are doing as much as we can in relation to the whole criminal justice area, with the Youth Justice Board, looking at the outcomes and how these issues are being dealt with. I would be happy to write to noble Lords more fully in relation to what we are doing on that score.

The Earl of Listowel: I apologise for intervening once more, but how can the new guidance be well informed if it is not informed by research on the impact of what is effectively naming and shaming these children? I welcome all the efforts that the Government have made in this area, and we all recognise that there have been tremendous steps forward in the youth justice field since the Government introduced the Youth Justice Board. However, on this particular point, if I may say so, the Government appear to be dragging their feet in terms of looking carefully at the matter. The policy seems to be driven forward by a Home Office priority in tackling anti-social behaviour—which is very important indeed—but the Government seem to have downgraded in that effort the importance of the interests of individual children.
	I apologise for pressing the Minister so hard on this point, but I feel passionate about it. I am sure that the Minister does too, but she has a huge agenda in front of her. I apologise to the Chamber for detaining it further.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have tried to be as clear as I can about the importance of this issue. I have said that we have reviewed the evidence. We are looking at anti-social behaviour orders and all the other intensive intervention programmes that we have undertaken at the same time. It is very difficult to disaggregate which part is actually responsible for which effect, because we have driven down crime. Crime has dropped by 30 per cent across the piece.
	In relation to youth justice, we have had some very positive responses with regard to the intensive intervention programmes and the parenting orders. Quite often, a whole series of issues have to be brigaded together, which enables you to make the step-change in relation to a child's behaviour. It may be educational support, health intervention, social service intervention, rehousing the family, parenting orders in relation to the parents and changing the environment in which the child lives—and there may also have been criminal proceedings and an anti-social behaviour order. How one disaggregates which bit had the effect is very difficult to say, but we are judging outcomes.
	The outcome is not just a punitive one in terms of the community. If one looks at the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the targets that we have set ourselves for the reduction of recidivism, narrowing the justice gap, bringing more offences to justice, raising confidence and all those aspirational targets, which are currently being met, the prospect for children is an awful lot brighter than it has hitherto been. This clause is a tiny contributor to that; it is not a panacea and it is not the whole picture. It will not cure all. For some children and some communities, it will be very helpful, but I do not put it any higher than that. It has to be set against the background and context of all the other work that we are doing across government to ensure that children's futures, particularly those of disadvantaged children, are far better today, as a result of the eight years of hard, committed work that this Government have given to children, than they have ever been before.

Baroness Stern: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I do not for one minute doubt her commitment. I remind her that the document entitled, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders—Use Of Publicity issued on 31 March states:
	"1. Statement of principles . . . publicity should be expected in most cases".
	The words,
	"publicity should be expected in most cases",
	are in bold type in case anyone had any doubts. I think that I heard the noble Baroness say that that document would be revised after the Bill became law. I hope that I heard her say that and I shall certainly expect to see that in Hansard tomorrow.
	I am very grateful to those who have spoken on this matter. Initially I felt very guilty at keeping noble Lords here so late. But having heard what everyone had to say I feel that it was very worth while. It will give a lot of encouragement to all those organisations out there which feel very, very deeply about how wrong this is. I must say that I agree with them. I think that we are doing something here which is extremely wrong. However, in view of the circumstances I withdraw my opposition.

Clause 138 agreed to.
	Clause 139 [Contracting out of local authority functions relating to anti-social behaviour orders]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dholakia: I shall be very brief. I promise that this will be my final contribution today.
	We are extremely concerned by the proposal in Clause 139 to allow local authorities to contract out their functions in relation to anti-social behaviour orders. Applications for orders that restrict the fundamental liberties of citizens should be handled by public bodies which are fully accountable and are the bodies responsible for dealing with public safety and crime reduction in their areas. Private bodies may have a financial incentive for seeking orders against people and are not sufficiently accountable. We see no legitimate reason for the inclusion of this provision.
	I have taken up many cases of vulnerable young people with suicidal tendencies. I would not wish to see them contracted out to outside bodies. The state that takes the decision to deprive people of their liberty should look after them. That is the criticism which I have of this clause. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides power for a "relevant authority" to apply for an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) in respect of any person aged over 10. This clause amends that section by inserting a new Section 1F to allow contracting out of local authority ASBO functions.
	"Contracting out", which is often referred to as "delegation", means that all the local authority's decisions relating to the discharge of a function are put into the hands of another person who then becomes the authorised decision-maker responsible for the discharge of that function on behalf of the local authority.
	New Section 1F will enable the Secretary of State to make an order which may specify a person to whom local authorities may contract out all or part of their ASBO functions. Local authorities must have the flexibility to make appropriate local decisions to ensure that their functions are carried out as effectively as possible, not least tackling anti-social behaviour. The ability to contract out all or some of their ASBO powers to other bodies, organisations, or agencies, may assist authorities in their management of strategic and operational functions.
	We want local authorities to be able to make local decisions about how to deliver their ASBO powers. However, this must be balanced with the need to make sure that those entrusted with these powers can be expected to be capable of exercising these functions responsibly. The new Section 1F requires that the bodies or types of bodies to whom local authorities may contract out all or part of their ASBO functions should be defined in an order made by the Secretary of State.
	There may be some instances where local authorities or the Secretary of State may wish to restrict the circumstances in which the specified bodies are able to discharge the contracted out ASBO functions. The clause allows both the Secretary of State and the local authority to attach conditions when contracting out ASBO functions and allows for the order to specify whether the local authority contracts out all or simply some of those functions. The order will allow the local authority to specify general, geographic or case-specific arrangements when contracting out. I know that the noble Lord is anxious about that. Local authorities will have the discretion whether to contract out ASBO functions to those persons specified in the order, and they will retain the power to discharge the ASBO functions in their own right, regardless of whether they have also entered into a contracting out arrangement.
	To help ensure that those included in an order made under the proposed power are capable of exercising the functions responsibly, subsection (5) provides that such an order may be laid only after consultation with representatives of the National Assembly for Wales where relevant, local authorities, and other persons as are considered appropriate. We have put in quite a lot of safeguards. I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured with that explanation. I urge the Committee to allow Clause 139 to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 agreed to.
	Clauses 140 and 141 agreed to.
	Schedule 11 agreed to.
	Clauses 147 and 148 agreed to.
	Clause 149 [Powers to seize etc. vehicles driven without licence or insurance]:
	[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]

Viscount Simon: moved Amendment No. 208:
	After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
	"DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ABOUT INSURANCE STATUS OF VEHICLES
	(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with requiring MIIC to make available relevant vehicle insurance information to PITO for it to process with a view to making the processed information available for use by constables.
	(2) "Relevant vehicle insurance information" means information relating to vehicles the use of which has been (but no longer is) insured under a policy of insurance, or security in respect of third party risks, complying with the requirements of Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52).
	(3) The regulations may in particular—
	(a) require all relevant vehicle insurance information or any particular description of such information to be made available to PITO,
	(b) determine the purposes for which information processed from such information by PITO may be made available for use by constables, and
	(c) determine the circumstances in which any of the processed information which has been made available for use by constables may be further disclosed by them.
	(4) In this section—
	"information" means information held in any form,
	"MIIC" means the Motor Insurers' Information Centre (a company limited by guarantee and incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) on 8th December 1998), and
	"PITO" means the Police Information Technology Organisation.
	(5) Regulations under this section—
	(a) may make different provision for different purposes, and
	(b) may contain any incidental or supplementary provision which appears appropriate.
	(6) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

Viscount Simon: I shall be much briefer than I had anticipated. This amendment and Amendment No. 209 have cross-party agreement, and I hope, following the election, that they might form part of an appropriate Bill. One in 20 vehicles on our roads are uninsured, which means that there is a much higher concentration in certain areas. Those vehicles have more collisions than insured vehicles, leading to a £30 increase to our premiums.
	Amendment No. 208 would provide a readily accessible database available to police officers and in particular through automatic number plate recognition units. That would quickly reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on our roads. Amendment No. 209 would provide the facility of evidential roadside breath testing which, through its operation, would reduce drink driving. Research indicates that deaths and injuries on our roads involving drivers over the limit are increasing. The amendment would increase the likelihood of such drivers being caught. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My name is attached to these amendments. I merely rise to thank the noble Viscount for tabling them and bringing them to our attention. Like him, I hope that we have the opportunity after the election, whatever the result of that election may be, to ensure that those matters are properly considered, as they deserve to be.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendment seeks to insert into the Bill provisions already in the Road Safety Bill. Clearly, it would have been preferable to have seen that Bill enacted in the current Session. However, as that will not now happen, I would be content in principle for the two clauses to be imported into this Bill.
	As the Committee will be aware, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has commented that in the case of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 209 there may be a risk of incompatibility with Article 5 of the ECHR. If my noble friend Lord Simon will agree to withdraw his amendments, I will today table revised amendments for Report stage tomorrow that will address the Committee's concerns. Consequential amendments are also required to Clause 174. I should add that as a result of the loss of Clause 18 of the Road Safety Bill, I shall also be bringing forward an amendment to provide for an exemption from speed limits for SOCA staff when discharging agency business.
	Although it is 10 minutes to 11 p.m., I hope that I will at least have given noble Lords who stayed to this time some reason for smiling.

Viscount Simon: I am indeed smiling at my noble friend. I am delighted at her response. On her advice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
	Clause 150 [Payments by Secretary of State to police authorities in relation to the prevention, detection and enforcement of certain traffic offences]:
	[Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 not moved.]
	Clause 150 agreed to.
	Clause 151 [Payments by Scottish Ministers to police authorities etc. in relation to the prevention, detection and enforcement of certain traffic offences]:
	[Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 not moved.]
	Clause 151 agreed to.
	Clause 152 [Publication of local policing information]:
	[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
	Clause 152 agreed to.
	Clauses 153 and 154 agreed to.
	Schedule 12 agreed to.
	Clause 155 agreed to.
	Schedule 13 agreed to.
	Clause 156 agreed to.
	Schedule 14 [Abolition of Royal Parks Constabulary: Supplementary]:
	[Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 not moved.]
	Schedule 14 agreed to.
	Clauses 157 and 158 agreed to.
	Schedule 15 agreed to.
	Clauses 159 to 166 agreed to.
	Schedule 16 [Private Security Industry Act 2001: Scottish extent]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 217:
	Page 234, line 34, at end insert—
	"In section 3 (conduct prohibited without a licence), after subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) In the application of this Act to Scotland—
	(a) the reference in subsection (3) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Scottish Ministers; but
	(b) before making any order under subsection (3) the Scottish Ministers are to consult the Secretary of State.""

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Schedule 16 amends the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to extend the remit of the Security Industry Authority and introduce regulation of the private security industry to Scotland. Currently the 2001 Act gives a power to the Home Secretary to designate, by order, which sectors are to be licensed and when. The amendments will give that order-making power to Scottish Ministers after consultation with the Home Secretary.
	Amendment No. 224 will give the Scottish Ministers powers of commencement in relation to the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 as they relate to Scotland after consultation with the Secretary of State. The amendment ensures that the commencement powers as regards the 2001 Act are consistent with Clause 173. I hope that I have pre-empted any concern that might have been expressed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 218:
	Page 235, line 19, at end insert—
	" In section 21 (access to enhanced criminal record certificates), the existing words "from (ga) a licence" to the end become sub-paragraph (i) and after that sub-paragraph add—
	"(gb) a licence under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to engage in any such licensable conduct (within the meaning of that Act) as will or may involve, or relate to, activities which paragraph 4A of Schedule 2 to that Act applies (taking precognitions)"."

The Duke of Montrose: In spite of the Minister's words, I have a few other questions on the application to the private security industry in Scotland. With the leave of the Committee, I would like to address Amendments Nos. 225 to 229 at the same time as Amendment No. 218, because I am told that there is a public interest element in them.
	Amendment No. 218 extends Section 21 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to include precognition agents, because Schedule 15 to the Bill amends the 2001 Act and extends the provisions to Scotland. This schedule extends the regulatory function of the security industry to include inter alia precognition agents. The Law Society of Scotland welcomes this aspect of the Bill, as it will ensure that a range of consumer protection mechanisms will be available for those witnesses who are interviewed by precognition agents.
	Precognition agents can in the course of their employment come into contact with child and vulnerable witnesses. The society therefore believes that precognition agents should be subject to enhanced disclosure checks when applying for a licence with the Security Industry Authority. This would also ensure conformity with other provisions contained in the legislation directed at enhancing child protection. The amendment seeks to achieve this. Amendment No. 226 is consequential.
	Amendment No. 225 provides that trainee solicitors in Scotland will be exempt from the provisions of paragraph (4) of Schedule 2 to the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The Bill does not define "solicitor" and, accordingly, the definition given in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 would apply—namely, that a person enrolled with the Law Society of Scotland would be the only one qualified.
	As currently drafted, only advocates and solicitors in Scotland would be exempt from the provisions of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Private Security Industry Act 2001. First-year trainee solicitors and some second-year trainees who have not be admitted by the Law Society of Scotland would not, therefore, be able to conduct the investigations outlined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, without being required to register with the Security Industry Authority. Part of the training currently given to trainee solicitors may involve work in this area.
	An important part of the training involves how to precognosce witnesses and prepare cases for court. This training is given by solicitors who are enrolled with the society and who supervise the trainees concerned. The society suggests that the exemption given to solicitors and advocates should be extended to trainee solicitors. This will ensure that trainees receive comprehensive training. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I share the noble Duke's desire to protect children and vulnerable adults, so I understand why these amendments have been tabled. However, they do not achieve the effect desired either by the Law Society of Scotland or by the noble Duke.
	Clause 158 of the Bill amends Part 5 of the Police Act 1997, which governs access to criminal records for employment vetting purposes and repeals the provisions which the amendment seeks to amend. Clause 158 changes the way in which eligibility for enhanced disclosure is governed and under those provisions it will be for the Scottish Ministers to determine, by order, the categories of persons eligible to apply for an enhanced disclosure.
	In making regulations under Part 5 of the 1997 Act, I am sure that Scottish Ministers will take account of the representations put to them by the Law Society of Scotland in relation to particular groups, including precognition agents. So the route that the noble Duke and the Law Society want is there in the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 225 and 228 seek to exempt trainee solicitors who are carrying out precognitions, or undertaking private investigation work, from the requirement to obtain an SIA licence and would bring them into line with the exemptions for qualified solicitors and advocates. While I share the noble Duke's concern that trainee solicitors should be provided with full and comprehensive training, we do not agree that these amendments are required to ensure that.
	When developing the detailed arrangements for the regulation of private investigators and precognition agents, I am sure that the SIA will liaise with the Law Society of Scotland to take into account the need for trainee solicitors who are planning to work in these areas to receive the necessary training without imposing any unnecessary regulatory burdens.
	Amendment No. 229 is also unnecessary. A door supervisor's licence is a particular type of SIA licence designed to regulate people who have responsibility for security and conflict management in places such as pubs and clubs. Such a licence would not be necessary for a security guard working in an off-licence. A security guard employed under contract at an off-licence would require an SIA security guard licence, which would address the specific training requirements for this group of people. Furthermore, it would be an unnecessary regulatory burden to impose these additional requirements on off-licensed premises in Scotland only.
	I hope that I have been able to explain why the amendments are not necessary, although I understand why the noble Duke raised them.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for that very full explanation, first, on Amendment No. 218 and, latterly, on Amendment No. 225 and the others in the group. In the light of her explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 219 to 224:
	Page 235, line 39, at beginning insert "an order or"
	Page 235, line 41, after "containing" insert "an order or"
	Page 235, line 42, after "Ministers" insert ", other than an order under section 26(2),"
	Page 235, line 43, leave out "and"
	Page 235, line 45, at end insert "; and
	(f) in subsection (5)(b), at the end add "(or where the order is, or regulations are, made by the Scottish Ministers, as the Scottish Ministers think fit)""
	Page 236, line 1, leave out from beginning to "after" and insert—
	"11 In section 26 (short title, commencement and extent)—
	(a) after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) In the application of this Act to Scotland—
	(a) the reference in subsection (2) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Scottish Ministers; but
	(b) before making any order under subsection (2) the Scottish Ministers are to consult the Secretary of State."; and.
	(b) in subsection (4),"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 225 to 229 not moved.]
	Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 167 [Orders and regulations]:
	[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 231:
	Page 126, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) any order under section 50;"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In moving Amendment No. 231, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 232. I shall be brief. These two amendments give effect to the one recommendation in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report on Part 1 of the Bill. The Government are happy to accept the committee's view that the order-making power in Clause 50 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 232:
	Page 127, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) any order under section 50;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 167, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 168 and 169 agreed to.
	Schedule 17 agreed to.
	Schedule 18 [Repeals and revocations]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 233 to 236:
	Page 239, line 20, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Unlawful Drilling Act 1819(60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4c. 1) In section 2, the words ", or for any other person acting in their aid or assistance,". 
			 Vagrancy Act 1824 (c. 83) Section 6. 
			 Railway Regulation Act 1842(c. 55) Section 17. 
			 Companies ClausesConsolidation Act 1845(c. 16) In section 156, the words ", and all persons called by him to his assistance,". 
			 Railways ClausesConsolidation Act 1845(c. 20) Sections 104 and 154. 
			 Licensing Act 1872 (c. 94) In section 12, the words "may be apprehended and"." 
		
	
	Page 239, line 21, at end insert—
	"London County Council(General Powers) Act 1894(c. ccxii) In section 7, the words "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or person authorised".
	
		
			 London County Council(General Powers) Act 1900(c. cclxviii) 
			 In section 27, the words "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer". 
			 Licensing Act 1902 (c. 28) 
			 In section 1, the words"apprehended and". 
			 In section 2(1), the words "may be apprehended, and"." 
		
	
	Page 240, line 17, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Criminal Justice Act 1967(c. 80) In section 91(1), the words "may be arrested without warrant by any person and"." 
		
	
	Page 240, line 19, at end insert—
	"Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment Provisional OrderConfirmation (Greater LondonParks and Open Spaces)Act 1967 (c. xxix)
	In Article 19 of the Order set out in the Schedule, the words "and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 237:
	Page 241, line 35, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 1, in paragraph 14(a), the words "to which the application relates"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This is a minor technical amendment. It simply reflects in the repeals schedule a repeal to Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act already provided for in subsection (15) of Clause 109. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 238 to 241:
	Page 242, line 30, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Football (Offences) Act 1991(c. 19) Section 5(1)." 
		
	
	Page 242, line 33, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Transport and Works Act1992 (c. 42) Section 30(1) and (3). 
			  Section 40." 
		
	
	Page 242, line 47, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 155.Section 166(4).Section 167(7)." 
		
	
	Page 243, line 48, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Offensive Weapons Act 1996(c. 26) Section 1(1)." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 241A not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 242 to 247:
	Page 245, line 30, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 2, paragraph 2." 
		
	
	Page 246, line 14, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Anti-terrorism, Crime andSecurity Act 2001 (c. 24) Section 39(8)." 
		
	
	Page 247, line 45, column 2, after "4," insert "paragraph 2(5)(a) and (7), and"
	Page 248, line 17, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 23(5)." 
		
	
	Page 248, line 20, column 2, leave out "paragraph 281(2)" and insert "paragraphs 12 and 281(2)"
	Page 248, line 39, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Prevention of Terrorism Act2005 (c. 2) Section 9(9)." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 170 [Penalties for offences: transitional modification for England and Wales]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 248:
	Page 129, line 12, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "section 133(4) 3 months" 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 170, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 171 and 172 agreed to.
	Clause 173 [Commencement]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 249:
	Page 129, line 33, after "sections" insert "113(6A) (and section 113(6) so far as relates to it),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 173, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 174 [Short title and extent]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 250:
	Page 131, line 15, leave out "71" and insert "(Proceedings under section 71: exclusion of public)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 174, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Employment Zones (Allocation of Contractors) Pilot Regulations 2005

Baroness Andrews: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, these new regulations use the power contained within Section 29 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 to test whether pilot proposals are likely to help people to obtain work, including the selection of participants on a sampling basis. Section 29 of the Jobseekers Act enables regulations to be made to pilot changes with a view to establishing whether they will work, but it limits the duration of such regulations to 12 months. At the end of that period, if appropriate, the regulations may be replaced by a similar provision for a further 12 months.
	The regulations before the House tonight will, therefore, permit the second year of operating this pilot scheme with random allocation to contractors. That will enable us to collect the necessary volume of evidence that we require to conduct a robust evaluation of the performance and the success of the pilot. Subject to analysis of the results of the second pilot period, it may be necessary to submit further regulations in 12 months' time to enable the pilot to continue for sufficient time to complete the analysis.
	These new regulations, therefore, replace the Employment Zones (Allocation to Contractors) Pilot Regulations 2004 with a further pilot scheme. The regulations are much the same as those approved in 2004, apart from a few minor amendments. The regulations will apply in the same geographical areas where the current pilot scheme operates, except, for example, there are two houses in the Birmingham zone which have been excluded and an extra postcode area has been added to the Southwark zone. Noble Lords can see that those are minor amendments.
	I backtrack briefly to establish the context in which we are introducing these regulations. In April 2000, as noble Lords know, we established 15 employment zones to help jobseekers aged 25 and over to find and move into work. Employment zones exist in areas of high and stubborn levels of unemployment. In those areas we have sought to bring together the best of both the public and the private sectors to provide innovative ways of tackling the many problems of the long-term unemployed individuals who need particular help tailored to their needs.
	So, in order to further test the value of employment zones, in 2003 in the smaller zones we introduced further legislation to widen the scope of the zones initiative to include jobseekers aged 18 to 24 and to allow jobseekers at significant disadvantage in the labour market to request early entry into the programme.
	In 2004 we introduced legislation to make similar changes in the largest zones. At the same time we introduced pilot arrangements to test whether having more than one provider operating in each zone would indeed improve the assistance offered to jobseekers.
	The legislation replaces the existing pilot schemes which allow those whose personal circumstances place them at significant disadvantage in finding employment to volunteer to participate in the employment zone at an earlier time than would usually be permitted. I draw noble Lords' attention to regulation 4 in that respect. Obviously, this is an important opportunity for those whose needs are the greatest. We want to ensure that they receive the help they require at an early stage. Some examples of the people who might benefit from this early entry are, for example, people with physical or mental impairment who require assistance with basic skills or language, or those who have been looked after as a child by a local authority. There are other examples.
	Noble Lords also know that the employment zone programme is a mandatory programme for all eligible jobseekers. Our contract management arrangements ensure that the provision provided by all contractors is maintained at a satisfactory level. All eligible jobseekers will be allocated to a contractor. They receive a similar level of assistance from those contractors in their endeavours to find work. No eligible jobseeker will be denied assistance in the zones.
	The random allocation to a particular contractor means that differing performance by contractors cannot be attributed to the labour market or to the client group. That means that both contractors and ourselves can see what really works.
	I am satisfied that allocating customers to the contractors in this way is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	We have consulted with the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding these draft regulations. The committee advised that it did not wish to have the proposed regulations formally referred.
	The House of Commons Thirteenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation considered a draft of the regulations on 17 March 2005.
	I hope that I have been able to explain, although briefly, the purpose and scope of the regulations and why we need them. We are seeking to provide additional support to those jobseekers who have the greatest problems in breaking out of poverty and moving into sustained employment. The flexibility of the employment zones programme will provide the individual assistance needed by these jobseekers. I hope that noble Lords feel that they can accept these regulations.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22 February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Andrews.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation delivered at high speed at a late hour. I do not propose to detain the House at any great length, for two reasons: first because the matter has been debated in the Commons. As has been pointed out in earlier proceedings, perhaps the hallmark of this Government has been how they have programmed primary legislation, to the extent that frequently it arrives in this House having been barely debated.
	That is not true about secondary legislation. The debates which took place in the other place about these regulations covered most of the ground, although the noble Baroness seems to have thought up one or two points which were not in the brief for the Minister in the other place.
	Secondly, because, as the noble Baroness pointed out, this is now something of an annual event and covers much the same ground as a similar order a year ago, one is bound to ask: how many more times do the Government expect this to be repeated? In that context, have the Government drawn any initial conclusions from the experience of the past year? One would have thought that after a year they would have had some idea as to what extent the proposals have been effective in getting people into jobs on a long-term basis—which, of course, we on this side of the House want as much as the Government.
	I am somewhat puzzled by the noble Baroness's remark about the random way in which candidates are to be selected. I think that she said that that means that the performance of the scheme will be unaffected by the region or individual. I should have thought that it will depend significantly on the selection between regions, even if it is made randomly within them. On human rights, I am a little concerned whether selecting people in a random way when they may subsequently be made subject to sanctions can be regarded as fair.
	Effectively, this scheme runs alongside Jobseekers Plus, and I am not clear to what extent they will overlap: whether they will operate at the same time or, if a person is randomly selected to be part of this scheme, the Jobseekers Plus scheme will not continue to cover them.
	One thing that is relevant in this context is how effective the operation is so far. In another place, the Minister concerned said:
	"Generally, across all the employment zones, we have a total of 11,620 joining the employment zones programme. Of those participants, 2,985—or 26 per cent.—have already moved into work and 1,094—37 per cent. of that 26 per cent.—have sustained their employment for 13 weeks or more. Those are the latest figures from January 2005".—[Official Report, Commons, 13th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 17/03/05; col. 11.]
	Why the Minister went round that extraordinary way of citing a percentage and then a percentage of a percentage, I am not clear, but what is apparent is that out of a total of about 11,000, only about 8,000 have found jobs that last for more than 30 weeks. That raises the question of whether the scheme is cost-effective.
	Curiously, the Government's statement says that no extra public money is involved, which can mean only either that they over-provided for it under the previous statutory instrument or that somehow a surplus has remained and spun-over. In all events, public money is involved in the scheme as a whole and we must ask: how does the cost to public money compare to the fact that apparently only 10 per cent of the people in the scheme, despite the fact that sanctions are being imposed, are getting jobs that last even 13 weeks or so. We do not know whether they last beyond 13 weeks; we do not appear to have any figures on that.
	The other point that strikes me is that this is effectively a scheme that relies on the operation being conducted in zones. I wonder whether that is sensible. The schedule to the regulations sets out in great detail which those zones are to be in Birmingham and other parts of the country—Glasgow, for example and London. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the scheme is to be extended to one particular London borough: the Evelyn ward of the London Borough of Lewisham, which is now to be linked with the London Borough of Southwark.
	It is relevant to ask in that context whether it is appropriate for the scheme to operate on a zone basis. Restricting allocations to a zone may well mean that people in the London borough of Southwark do not get offered opportunities at the other side of the river, for example, in Canary Wharf. Is the object to get more people into employment or simply to reduce unemployment in a zone?
	It would be helpful to know to what extent contractors involved in the scheme are limited to operating within a zone. Can they seek to place randomly selected candidates in a nearby zone where perhaps the employment opportunities are better? The crucial question is whether the objective is simply to get more people into jobs or only to lower the level of unemployment in a zone? On which of those two bases is the scheme to be evaluated in a year's time? One must hope that by then the Government—no doubt, an incoming Conservative government—will be in a position to evaluate exactly what the scheme is doing and to what extent it has been successful.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for introducing the regulations. Looking at them at 11.20 p.m., I have to say that they are as grim as it gets. There are nine pages of postal codes, which may or may not be designated areas, depending on what the regulations say. Even after re-reading the document, you do not get the feel of what it is about. Yet the Explanatory Notes say:
	"Within Employment Zones private and public/private sector advisers work with participants, providing innovative and flexible solutions to assist them to find sustainable employment".
	Late though it may be, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could flesh out the details. What does it mean for someone who is unemployed to meet a contractor? How does someone, through meetings and whatever happens, become more employable and indeed employed? It would be useful to be reminded of the nature of the innovation and the flexible solutions.
	As the noble Baroness has indicated, these regulations have been before the House before. We are here to approve them for another year, and there is a promise that we might be asked to do it in a year's time. Where is the scheme at the moment, what monitoring is taking place and how effective is the scheme for participants? It would be useful if the Minister could flesh out the details and give a little information on the scheme's effectiveness.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for creating the opportunity to say a little more on the detail and to answer some very important questions. If I cannot answer them, I shall have to write to the noble Lords. I shall start by responding to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, because they create a context for the more specific questions that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked. I appreciate the problems of reading such regulations without the context of primary legislation or the opportunity for a debate on their purpose.
	I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, about the collection of postcodes at the back of the regulations; they look like logarithm tables. We tried to bring that information together in one place, as previously it had been published separately, so there was a reason for that.
	What happens to the people—not necessarily just young people—who are placed on the schemes, which are mandatory? There is a two-stage or three-stage process. The first part of the process is the 28 days in which they are given intensive one-to-one counselling and advice. The barriers to re-employment that they experience are thoroughly explored. One of the things that we must bear in mind is that they are the most difficult people to place in employment. They have been out of the labour market for a long time, and they may have all sorts of problems. They may have problems with addiction, with language or with phobias, or they may have general cultural or attitudinal problems with work. In the normal New Deal process, many of those issues would be addressed but not in the depth that is necessary.
	That introductory period is followed by 26 weeks—it might be less, it might be more—for finding sustainable employment in which to place people. That is the challenge. It is what the providers are there to do and what they get their money for. Because of the way in which the scheme operates, there is freedom to provide, for example, training outside an area or in a different set of skills—interview skills, technical skills or whatever. Some providers—I have case studies here—have gone to the extent of buying a wind-up alarm clock for somebody whose electricity supply was fitful, to make sure that they got to places on time. They may provide a decent suit, so that a candidate can turn up at an interview looking respectable. The scheme goes beyond the sort of thing that we can expect from the normal process.
	If, by that time, clients still have not found a job and they go back to the normal scheme, Jobcentre Plus, they still have the opportunity to stay voluntarily with the scheme. It is a fairly continuous and consistent process of help, but the important distinction is that it is very personal. We have had many hours this evening to discuss the scheme, and I have been told by officials of the personal relationships that are built up between the personal adviser and the client, to the extent that they will each be on the end of a mobile phone most of the time. It is an impressive scheme, and that is why the evaluations that are coming back are so positive.
	We need to extend the scheme because we need to build up a better and more robust body of evidence. The normal time for such research would be two if not three years, if one were doing a reasonably based study. We have done one year. We need at least another year, and it is possible that we will be back asking noble Lords to renew the regulations again. It is hard to say whether we will come back again twice. It depends on what we find. If we find that the scheme is working extremely well on some very stubborn problems, we may well ask the House for permission to extend it. I cannot anticipate what will happen.
	We have not done quantitative work because we need the body of evidence. However, we have done qualitative work that shows that the policy is being implemented effectively. We are getting positive feedback on the way in which the random allocation works. Jobcentre Plus and the providers feel that the scheme is delivering equitable results. We get individual feedback from client surveys, and we have found that clients find it a very supportive process. We are beginning to pick up parts of the qualitative picture and, in June, we will publish some findings. In November, we will report on the provision for young people, who came into the scheme relatively recently, relative to the New Deal for Young People. In September next year, we will publish a report on client outcomes and further operational issues.
	The point of the research, which in a way addresses some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about cost-effectiveness, is that we are not looking only at the way in which the scheme delivers for individuals; we will also consider the cost-effectiveness of the scheme itself. It will be a comprehensive study. I hope that that takes care of some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we would seem to have some quantitative data already; namely, about only 10 per cent or so of the people have been found jobs. That does not seem to be a very high strike rate given the intensity of the communication between the provider and the candidate that the noble Baroness has described. So what has been the cost per job so far?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, if the noble Lord can give me a moment, I will find those figures. We have to be careful about thinking that the figure of 1,000 out of 11,000—which, as he says, is roughly right—represents the sum total of success. Of course, it is a snapshot to begin with. Some of those people will still be going through the system, so it would be right to suspend judgment until we have the longer study.
	I come back to the point that those people present a serious challenge as regards placing in work. In the study, we want to see how the cost-benefit and the effort that we are putting in compares with what we are achieving outside employment zones. The cost per entry for mandated clients without their benefit costs is £1,575 each. With the cost of benefits, that sum rises to £5,550. But as more job outcomes are realised we expect those costs to fall.
	I have dealt with the point about evaluation and I have said something about random allocation in that respect. The other thing to say about random allocation is that it is done using technology: it is not done by people. Clients are allocated to providers by the computer so that it is completely fair. One of the reasons it must be fair when using multiple providers is that you do not want to give all the most difficult clients to the same provider. When we say that it is independent of the effect of the labour market, it means that we are dealing simply with a random selection of people in different situations. They are being dealt with on that individual basis and do not have any choice. Sometimes clients do not want to work with a particular provider and, in that sense, sanctions can operate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a point about cost effectiveness. As I have said, cost information indicates that the scheme costs as much per additional job entry as the relevant New Deal. But we will not have the full picture until we do the full evaluation. We will also be looking at different sorts of benefits in that respect.
	The noble Lord also asked to what extent providers are free to place people into work outside the area in which they operate. There are no restrictions. They do not have to operate within the zone. If they are able to find an employer outside the borough or wherever, they can take that opportunity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also asked whether the scheme overlaps with the Jobseekers Plus scheme. Once a person has gone through the programme and has not been placed, the person is referred back to the Jobseekers Plus scheme. As I understand it, they are taken out of the Jobseekers Plus scheme for the duration of the programme.
	The noble Lord also asked why we are doing this on a zone basis. I do not know the history of the zoning system in great detail, but I imagine that it follows the creation of education action zones and health action zones. Many of those have been around the same size as the employment zones. They are focused where we find concentrations of multiple deprivation. Sometimes that arises in relatively small neighbourhoods. A concatenation of circumstances arises which needs to be specifically addressed. While that may not be the wisest explanation, it probably covers the history of the system.
	I should like to write to the noble Lord about evaluations within the zones because I shall first take official advice. The point is likely to be more technical than I had realised. Turning to how successful the employment zones have been in helping people to move into employment, we have addressed that and I shall send to both noble Lords further figures to flesh out the picture and provide more context.
	I hope that I have addressed most of the queries that were put to me. When I read Hansard tomorrow—and I am sure that my officials will do so assiduously—if I find that questions have not received a response, I shall be happy to write. In the mean time, I hope that the regulations commend themselves to noble Lords and that they will give them a fair passage.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Capacity Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.